Ann Coulter Hurts the Cause

The American Thinker ^ | 6 15 06 | J.R. Dunn

[Kitten Festival]

Let me ask you this: when, prior to last week, was the last time you heard of the Jersey Girls? I can’t give a definite answer, which in itself is telling. Not that I was paying any large amount of attention, but there was a lot of noise in between the Afghan and Iraqi campaigns, intense media play building up to the 2004 election, which they did their damndest to throw to Kerry, and then… nothing.

They’d shot their bolt, they had their fifteen minutes and more, and that was the end of it. Until last week when Ann Coulter, acting unilaterally, put them back on the front pages with an attack so obnoxious that it immediately (and unjustly – it was the Girls themselves, after all, who debased their victim status for political purposes) threw all sympathy in their direction. A free ticket to a second act. Not to mention providing Madame Hillary with an opportunity to pose as, of all things, the defender of civility.

Thanks a lot, Ann.

Conservatives used to be known for this kind of thing. Much of this was the media’s doing – at any conservative gathering, be it a gun show or a political convention, reporters will make a beeline for the guy in full camo gear or wearing two dozen anti-UN buttons. But conservatives played their part.

The classic figure here is Coulter’s idol, Joe McCarthy. Bellowing about Communists you couldn’t produce (and it cannot be repeated often enough that McCarthy bagged nobody – the Party infiltrators had been cleaned out by the time he showed up) was bad enough. Doing it in an ill-cut Chicago gangland suit with a five-o’clock shadow and fifth of Jim Beam under your belt simply turned it into a circus.

[Tax-chick]

Thanks - woulda been funny, but they fixed it while I was asleep.

[Wolfstar]

...and those who take the high ground (who we need) can work in the background...

At least you are intellectually honest, which is an increasingly rare commodity around here.

[Sam Hill]

"Coulter is not effective for anything or any one except her own enrichment."

There you go again.

You don't know Coulter. You don't know her history.

But you think if you repeat this lie often enough people will believe it.

You take the high road all right.

BTW, speaking of greed, few mention that the "Jersey Girls" only formed because they were unhappy with the original $15 billion victims' compensation fund. They said the package was arbitrary and unfair.

It was only after they got their takes bumped up $200,000 to $1.85 million each that they decided they should find out what caused 9/11 to happen.

And when they didn't get the answer they wanted (Bush) they screamed cover up.

But man, that Ann Coulter is greedy!

[Wolfstar]

Sorry to get personal...

Bull crap! You're not sorry at all. You do exactly what so many around here love to complain about when DU'ers do it. Here in FR's "Church of Coulter" no dissention or divergence of opinion are allowed. Anyone who does not follow the approved line regarding Coulter is vilified.

I see Coulter often on TV, hear her on radio frequently, and read her stuff. Most of the time, I agree with her politically. However, I do NOT like the woman on a human level. Period. And I, like the author of the above article, I think she feeds the ugliest stereotypes of conservatives.

[Sam Hill]

I guess you didn't read what I posted. She was FIRED by MSNBC for saying to one of the founding members of Kerry's Vietnam Veterans Against The War -- "no wonder you guys lost" after he misrepresented some figures of US losses:

“Over The Top” Ann Coulter Remark Exposed | Sweetness & Light
http://www.sweetness-light.com/archive/one-of-ann-coulters-over-the-top-remarks-exposed

Not that that job paid.

And her 1998 "best seller" "HC&M" was published by Regnery, who are sadly notorious for paying next nothing. (Which tradition they maintained.)

But thanks for inadvertantly making my point.

Continue with your uninformed jihad.

And you forgot to tell me if there weren't ever any other comments from a conservative figure you disagreed with. I guess not, huh?

[Sam Hill]

"Here in FR's "Church of Coulter" no dissention or divergence of opinion are allowed."

Right. That's why there haven't been any threads decrying her recent remarks or any post criticizing her.

This is the level of your "veracity."

[samtheman]

Look, Wolfstar. You accused her of foaming at the mouth and I am right to question your sanity, your sincerity, and your motivation if you can honestly tell me that you believe that last night on Leno she was "foaming at the mouth". If you didn't see it, go to youtube and watch it there, and then come back and admit you were wrong, or continue to make a fool of yourself. Those are your choices right now. (Or of course, say nothing further.)

By the way, I have many times here admitted in FR that I was wrong or mistaken or misspoke, so I'm not being hypocritical suggesting that here you do the same. If you feel like it. It's no big deal. Just go watch the video and then come back and come clean.

[Wolfstar]

I wrote: "Coulter is not effective for anything or any one except her own enrichment."

To which you replied: "There you go again. You don't know Coulter. You don't know her history." You call the above a lie, and obliquely suggest that what I mean by it is that she's greedy. At that shows is that you don't get what I'm saying.

Coulter's antics do not benefit the conservative cause in any way. True, she has plenty of fans on the right because she says what many people wish they had the chance to say. She is a hero to many on the right in the same way, and for the same reasons that James Carville is a hero to many on the left.

Both Coulter and Carville have built lucrative careers on their ascerbic personnas and hyper-partisanship. To note their success and methods is neither a lie, nor the same as saying they are greedy. Get it?

[Sam Hill]

"Coulter's way enriches herself, but does nothing for the conservative cause."

Right. From this week's Time Magazine:

What Would Ann Coulter Do?

On campus, a new conservative women's anti-feminist group is rising, and both their liberal counterparts and conservative mentors are taking notice

By

Jun. 12, 2006

As female college activist groups go, the Network of Enlightened Women, or NeW, is a very different breed. They don't distribute condoms on the Quad or march for a woman's right to choose. Instead, they bake chocolate chip cookies and protest campus productions of Eve Ensler's The Vagina Monologues, a controversial play about female sexuality that conservatives say degrades women and glorifies rape.

Barely two years old, NeW is a small but fast-growing campus alternative to the Feminist Majority and the National Organization of Women, with a foothold in seven states. More importantly, it has already gained the attention and support of the most powerful conservative women in Washington.

This Friday controversial pundit Ann Coulter, Secretary of Labor Elaine Chao and others will address the leaders of NeW and their peers at the Conservative Leadership Seminar, a Capitol Hill conference where aspiring right-wingers learn from the pros. The seminar is sponsored by the Clare Boothe Luce Policy Institute, an organization that mentors young conservative women. Though conservatives rising up on campus isn't exactly a new phenomenon, until now there hasn't been a group on campus that has specifically taken on modern feminism the way national groups like the Independent Women's Forum and the Eagle Forum have done in Washington...

 Now tell us what you have done for the cause, Wolfstar.

[Sam Hill]

"Coulter's antics do not benefit the conservative cause in any way."

You know this through divine revelation.

She has helped to convert untold numbers to the cause. Especially young people.

I know, I've seen them come up to her on the street in droves.

Your mantra of lies belongs at DU.

[Larry Lucido]

Ann can hurt me any time she wants.

[Wolfstar]

And you forgot to tell me if there weren't ever any other comments from a conservative figure you disagreed with. I guess not, huh?

I don't usually play along with bait-and-switch tactics. However, your question is so odd that I'll address it.

1. Politically, I agree with Coulter most of the time. The substance of her arguments is not where I have an issue with her. I do not like anything about her manner. Nothing. To repeat myself, I believe she feeds right into the worst stereotypes of conservatives. To put it in a way you may understand, public relations matters. She is the antithesis of Ronald Reagan who, more than any other figure in modern times, was responsible for showing the American public that conservatives are not the knuckle-dragging Neanderthals the media and Hollywood have portrayed for so long.

2. As for whether or not I disagree with other conservatives, of course I do. Unlike far too many people here on FR, I neither expect myself to agree 100% with others, nor do I demand 100% agreement from others. To do so is foolish and unrealistic.

[colorado tanker]

Ann is just following the Clinton's game plan. Respond to all charges and always stay on the attack.

It's far more effective than Dubya's "new tone."

[Wolfstar]

Right. That's why there haven't been any threads decrying her recent remarks or any post criticizing her.

No -- that's why anyone who either writes an article like the posted one, or who comes on these threads and criticizes her, is attacked in multiple ways.

As for me, I don't mind being attacked for not liking Coulter. I come on these threads to show all those lurkers out there that not all conservatives think she's some kind of paragon.

[skeeter]

All conservatives are hereby forbidden from mocking or criticizing any leftists at all, past or present, for fear that the media may quote their comments out of context on a slow news day. I have spoken." - JR Dunn.

WWTCD - what would Tucker Carlson do?

[Sam Hill]

You are the one changing the question. I asked if there weren't other comments out of conservative pundits you disagreed with?

For instance, even on this subject, did you rail about Rush Limbaugh's remarks about the Jersey Girls back in 2004?

Limbaugh said they were "poisoned by their hate," and referred to the organization as Democratic "campaign consultants ... not grieving family members ... obsessed with rage and hatred."

Where was your outrage?

[Wolfstar]

If you didn't see it, go to youtube and watch it there, and then come back and admit you were wrong, or continue to make a fool of yourself. Those are your choices right now. (Or of course, say nothing further.)

I don't know who the heck you think you are, but I don't respond to such orders.

"Foam-at-the-mouth" is an adjective; hyperbole not to be taken in the literal sense, but is used to describe hotheaded behavior. I do not know what Coulter did on Leno last night, nor do I care. If you or anyone wish to deny that Coulter's whole persona is built on a hot-headed approach to political issues, I would refer you to her own words. She describes herself as a polemicist.

Polemic: defined by Mirriam-Webster as an aggressive attack on or refutation of the opinions or principles of another. A polemicist is defined as an aggressive controversialist.

While many enjoy the antics of polemicists, I do not. So sue me.

[Nonstatist]

Several times in the last week or so, I've posted that Coulter is the right-wing equivalent of James Carville

No way. Impolitic or not, Coulter has a cogent, consistent philosophy and is an original thinker. I think her exposition on liberalism as a religion is brilliant.

Nothing Carville says is particularly insightful or original, IMO. A mundane thinker, although he has had some limited success as a tactician. But you cant learn much from the guy. Coulter is different.

[Wolfstar]

For instance, even on this subject, did you rail about Rush Limbaugh's remarks about the Jersey Girls back in 2004?

Are you really so dense? Or have you made it your mission in life to defend Coulter with every fiber of your being?

Once again: I agree with Coulter politically most of the time. I agree with her overarching point about the "Jersey Girls." I agree with Limbaugh's as well.

My problem is not with the substance of Coulter's commentary, but with her nasty style.

[Sam Hill]

"WWTCD - what would Tucker Carlson do?"

LOL

Our one party media/establishment simply cannot abide un-neutered conservatives.

And, in the same way fish don't know they're wet, too many hear are under their spell.