National Review Cans Columnist Ann Coulter

Washington Post ^ | 10/2/01 | Howard Kurtz

[Jean S]

Even by her usual incendiary standards, Ann Coulter's response to the terrorist attacks was something of a jaw-dropper.

"We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity," the conservative commentator declared in her column on National Review Online.

Those words created an uproar at the Web site, which refused to run a follow-up piece in which Coulter singled out what she called "swarthy males." She promptly began bad-mouthing National Review, which responded by axing her as a contributing editor.

[LibertarianLiz]

Here is Goldberg's original column:

A Continent Bleeds

And the follow-up:

Jonah Goldberg's African Invasion

[Aristophanes]

I agree with what you said, except for the part where you state that we are at war. Point in fact, we are NOT at war. We should be at war, but Bush and Congress -- like Jonah Goldberg and the rest of the "girly-boys" at NR -- are too politically-correct to do it right and declare war and get on with it.

[TLBSHOW]

that was a great email to these total fools at the new left magazine.

[BamaG]

This is over reacting, emotional foolishness, this talk about boycotting the National Review

Is the modern conservative movement a cult, following lockstep one individual, no matter what qualifications or viewpoints this individual has?

I have subscribed to the NR for years, I have enjoyed it. I do not believe everything that is in it. Reasonable people can disagree. For example, I do not believe everything Andrew Sullivan says, but sometimes I think he hits the nail on the head with his analysis. And Freepers have no problem posting his comments, no matter how offensive his viewpoint on other matters may be.

The NRO was well within its rights to refuse to carry Ann Coulter's column, just as she was well within her rights to say what she wanted to.

However, what good are ad hominum attacks, like the "girly men" comment? Should the NRO respond with anorexic comments about Ann? Her intemperate rhetoric does nothing to further the cause, it only paints us as wild eyed reactionaries.

To exclude the National Review because of an editorial decision is quite simply, cutting off your nose to spite your face. On more issues than not, the NRO is online with most Freepers. They have been the staunchest critics of the Clintons, Colin Powell, the pro-life movement, pro-second amendment,...any conservative cause you can think of. Rich Lowry has written some harsh words about the administration's coalition building in this war.

This is not a pc, moderate magazine. I will continue to post and comment on it, if the forum doesn't like the source, that is its perogative, and unfortunatly its loss

[JMJ333]

Ever heard "Actions speak louder than words?"

Of course, but she's a columnist and she said what she meant. Personally, I don't think there is anyway to convert the people in post #31. You'd have to use force because they have been conditioned to hate us since birth-- and force is the antithisis of Christian conversion.

For what its worth, I don't hold it against her. I think she was grieving over Barbara Olson. And I don't think she should have been fired for speaking her mind. I think Jonah Goldberg was looking for an excuse to fire her, and her comments gave him ample ammunition.

[TLBSHOW]

Topic: Ann Coulter Gets the Hook unregistered posted 10-02-2001 10:35 AM -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Howard Kurtz has written today that National Review has dismissed Coulter as a contributing editor. Since it is apparent that writing skill was never a criterion for her employment, the dismissal must have been predicated on her wild-eyed fanaticism as evidenced by the column calling for the conversion of all Muslims to the Protestant faith of little Miss Ann's choice. (Who knew that there was an altar to Clairol?) Funny that her odiferous writing couldn't pass the smell test even in those hallowed halls. Since Mademoiselle has folded, what's in the future for little Miss Ann? More repudiation by the right?

BEST PART YOU DON'T HAVE TO REGISTER!

RATS ARE AFTER ANN HERE HELP FREEP EM

[TLBSHOW]

WE ARE NOT PUTTING THEIR SPEW HERE ANYMORE. THEY ARE BEING BOYCOTTED BY TOP POSTER HERE AT FR AND TLBSHOW.

As the saying goes, we either hang together, or hang separately...

148 Posted on 10/01/2001 23:01:11 PDT by JohnHuang2

[BoomerBob]

Thanks for the names. I'll dig around and see if I can find some of there writings.

[Prodigal Daughter]

To convert Moslems to Christianity or Judeo-Christianity or at least anti-Islam agnosticism, you don't have to use force, you just have to get rid of the people forcing them into Islam. Why do you think they are so afraid of Bibles and witnessing over there? They know most common Moslems would jump at a chance to get out from under that oppression.

[looscannon]

Excellent suggestion, Fred! I hope Fox is on it already.

[Prodigal Daughter]

I'm trying to convince my Catholic relatives that Allah is NOT God, nor do Allah's people plan to peacefully coexist with us, but the Pope hasn't made it very easy for me.

[Prodigal Daughter]

I don't know any ugly conservative women, do you? Then added to that the fact that we have high I.Q.'s, no wonder liberal women hate us so.

[nancetc]

I called NR this morning 10:50 AM CST. The woman checked to see if they were no longer carrying the Ann Coulter editorials. She came back to the phone and stated yes that is true they will no longer be printing Ann Coulter's editorials. I said I think that's a shame as I now won't subscribe and I think you'll lose alot of subscriptions....

She did not agree that they'll lose subscriptions. Perhaps you who do subscribe ought to call and cancel so they get the message. Not just the "I'll not renew approach." That way they get the message.

[steve-b]

Unlike Bill "The Toad" Maher, Coulter does not appear to backing down from her position or cynically and falsely whining that her First Amendment rights have been violated.

***BBBZZZZZZTTT!!!*** I'm sorry; that answer is not correct. Don't forget your lovely consolation prize....

On Maher's ABC show, Coulter accused National Review of having "censored" her by refusing to run the follow-up column.

[Prodigal Daughter]

Back when things weren't so politically correct, we had this WWII poster, and Ann Coulter would have been allowed to speak my mind--I mean speak her mind.

[Silly]

When I protested with my "Sore Loserman" sign in Times Square last winter (five hours a night for a month), I noticed a HUGE difference in the women who supported Bush and those who were against Bush.

The anti-Bush women were ugly, mannish sorts with anger written all over them. The pro-Bush women were beautiful, sexy, affluent and -- like Laura Bush -- they truly sparkled.

That's my observation -- don't ask me to explain it!

[BibChr]

That's another, and pretty cool, way of describing why I let my subscription lapse. Not everything is snootily amusing.

Dan

[The Raven]

Looked like a dangling modifier to me. Then again, it's been a number of years since school.

[careyb]

Help yourselves.

Thread II