Fired Conservative Columnist Anne Coulter Getting 'Great Publicity'

CNS News ^ | 10/2/01

[truthandlife]

Conservative columnist Ann Coulter, fired from her contributing editor perch at the National Review Online, blames it on free-speech hysteria in the wake of the Sept. 11 attacks. In a recent online column, Coulter opined that the United States should respond forcefully to the terrorist attacks: "We should invade their countries, kill their leaders, and convert them to Christianity," she said. The comment provoked an uproar, and the National Review Online subsequently refused to run another Coulter piece in which she referred to "swarthy males." When Coulter complained, she was fired. Tuesday's Washington Post quotes Coulter as saying she doesn't need friends like that. "Every once in awhile they'll throw one of their people to the wolves to get good press in left-wing publications," she told the newspaper. National Review Online Editor Jonah Goldberg told the Post, "We didn't feel we wanted to be associated with the comments expressed in those two columns." Coulter told the Washington Post she's getting great publicity as a result of the flap.

[jedi150]

Their loss.

[Frank Chodorov]

A couple of offers from the local cable access channel's "Kill em all for Jesus" show no doubt.

[pabianice]

To be fair, it works both ways. Writers must have the freedom to say what they want. Employers must have the freedom to fire people they don't want.

[mgc1122]

time will tell whose ideas have more merit. i dont agree with ann's assertions about 'what' to do, but i don't think national review should have fired her. it is a gutless and telling decision on their part to controversy. and its telling the liberals who were whining about cencorship as attempts to get maher's advertisers pulled were made are totally silent on this.

[gfactor]

in capitalism, the boss is the boss, the owner is the owner. when they tell you to shut up or pack up, its their right. that's why you wont see the profit minded capitalist media criticizing capitalism. Some call this "free speech". others call it private tyrannies.

[537 Votes]

Is this the same Jonah Goldberg who suggested just last year that we should go into Africa, "guns blazing," to impose democracy on the poor benighted Africans?

Coultier suggested we kill people who are trying to kill us. Goldberg wants to kill people who never did anything to us.

Maybe he should fire himself.

[ventana]

If you think that she's wrong you are naive. If the enemy thinks the way to victory is to invade you and not stop until you convert how do you defeat that enemy? By simply holding the line and taking a defensive posture? Is that how football or chess is played, by taking the defensive posture and holding the line, or do you go on the offense with a clear goal and mission. If you can't state your goal and mission in an offensive manner, how can you win. And what will you win. V's wife.

[Don]

National Review Online Editor Jonah Goldberg told the Post, "We didn't feel we wanted to be associated with the comments expressed in those two columns." Why did you print them, then?

[FormerLurker]

"We should invade their countries, kill their leaders, and convert them to Christianity,"

You've got to admit, that's a bit on the extreme side. The first two comments are OK, but I'm sure a lot of people would have a problem with the last remark. Many people believe in God, but not all of them are Christians.

[MizSterious]

Actually, I'm not sure I'd want to be associated with Jonah Goldbert. Ann's columns were on target, sorry pc'ers.

[malarski]

"We should invade their countries, kill their leaders, and convert them to Christianity,"

Sounds to me like one of the neocons in their PC ways.

[Jay W]

To be fair, it works both ways. Writers must have the freedom to say what they want. Employers must have the freedom to fire people they don't want.

True, but there's a third party in play here: Readers must have the freedom to not purchase National Review products. I certainly would not purchase National Review for what they did -- firing Anne Coulter. The keyword there is purchase, as in not purchasing National Review.

The hijackers were swarthy males. The "men" at National Review are girly-boys.

[JmyBryan]

I'd like to know the "exit-strategy" for declaring "converted".

[lavaroise]

Judging from this, I think most of America is to the left, even so called conservatives. The National Review is afraid of shedding Islamic terrorist blood. What a sorry nation we are if that is the kinds of fears we share.

[MayflowerMadam]

Think Shift key.

[MizSterious]

You make a good point, but consider: in Taliban territory, you're either a Muslim or you suffer dearly. When I read Ann's column, I got the impression she was saying (at least in part), let's do to them what they want to do to us.

[BurkeanCyclist]

...i don't think national review should have fired her.

They didn't. You can't fire someone who doesn't work for you. They stopped carrying her syndicated column.

[OWK]

Add Coulter to the list of assorted idiots who took this situation as an opportunity to set their hair on fire and run about in circles screaming "look at me, LOOK AT ME!!".

Coulter, Browne, Falwell, Robertson, Maher, and counting.