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.

[Dumb_Ox]

Its the suggestion of forced conversion that is the problem.

Where is that suggested? I see this stated again and again by posters, but I don't see it in the text. As I assume Miss Coulter has a Christian aversion to coerced conversion, I see no reason to insinuate such an idea.

[Protagoras]

He should have stood by free speech like the left does. He could have disassociated himself from those remarks in Ann's column and that would have been the end of it.

There seems to be some confusion as to the meaning of free speech. It does not include the provision of a forum by a private organisation, or a government forum for that matter. It means you can say what you wish and you take the consequences that result.

Goldberg is a jew (I think) and the logical conclusion of her proposal if implemented would be to force jews among others to be converted to Christianity. It was a bizzare remark and he chose to fire her for it. His call.

[Critter]

I don't defend it, I condone it. I applaud it! It is "falling out of my chair" funny!

[Aurelius]

Can someone please provide a link to Ms Coulter's original article? Thanks.

[editor-surveyor]

"Somehow, you interpret 'disagree' with being 'frightened'."

Dejavu all over again.

No, he doesn't understand enough about the Gospel to disagree with it; his fear has prevented him from studying it. - This thread is a perfect textbook example.

[Iwo Jima]

"We should invade their countries, kill their leaders, and convert them to Christianity," --Ann Coulter You can rationalize it if you want... "

It was a joke, for crying out loud! Can't you see that? I laughed my head off when I read it. So did others to whom I read it. Are you all so dense that Ann has to resort to "J.K.!" (teenage girl talk for "just kidding").

Someone will always publish Ann, and I will always read her. It seems clear to me that Jonah Goldberg was just insecure around Ann and looking for a pretext to oust her.

I have read columns by Jonah in the past which I enjoyed, but he has been a stale, spent force for months now. Ann always manages to stay fresh. He really couldn't afford to let her stay around.

[Beep]

Exactly!! Ann's remarks were not to be taken at sheer face value, and if the National Review can't understand the symbolic nature of Ann's words, then they are too stupid to be allowed to host her column! They also need to take into consideration the fact that Ann lost a very near and dear friend on 9/11 -- Barbara Olson (BKO, here). Ann was highly upset, and rightly so. I think she showed incredible reserve that soon after the attacks. Ann's column is a political editorial. That means she has every right to express her personal beliefs! The moronic NR could have issued a disclaimer, if they were so concerned about being "PC weenies." They did not have to "fire" her. At any rate, I'm with Ann; I don't want to be associated with people like that either! Hypocrites!! Write on, Ann!! Write on!!

[let freedom sing]

Yeah, Anne, that's what I said. Stick to your guns. Don't apologize.

[Physicist]

As I assume Miss Coulter has a Christian aversion to coerced conversion, I see no reason to insinuate such an idea.

Force is clearly implied by the fact that it immediately follows, "Invade their countries" and "kill their leaders". I somehow don't get the impression that she's inviting them to a Promise Keeper's rally and hoping they'll see the light.

[hchutch]

The first column, written just after the attacks, was borderline, given the emotional state. Barbara Olson was also a friend of Jonah Goldberg, and so, the column was published. It was somewhat over the top, but she'd lose a close friend in the attack. A person who was a good friend of other NRO writers and the editor.

Unfortunately, the progressives, who didn't care much for Barbara when she was alive, promptly started an attack. That was when the editors probably re-read the column. To their credit, they ignored the flak. But the second column was still over the top. They made the justifiable call not to run it. I have seen the column in question.

I speak as a columnist for my college paper (Cornell College in Mt. Vernon, Iowa), who had one column pulled shortly after the 1994 elctions over an item that had to the potential to unintentionally offend people. I asked why it had been pulled, they told me, and I kept that in mind for future columns. This was much milder than what Ann's column, written in the heat of anger.

Had Ann not mouthed off (on Politically Incorrect of all shows), she'd not have been fired. And we'd not be in this fight amongst ourselves. Both sides have som fault in this, and I will continue to read both Ann Coulter's columns AND National Review Online and OnDeadTree. Both have their place among our just and noble cause. And I hope they can patch things up later on.

[malakhi]

That NRO chose not to do so in this instance does not, in my opinion, reflect well on them.

Now that is a fair criticism.

[StacyMac]

<>Actually, America is the most prominent country ever founded on Christianity. God's blessing has been upon this land and as a result, America is responsible for most of the creations and inventions of benefit to the world at large. I believe it is because we are hooked up to the Creator. Just look at Moslem or Buddist or Hindu and pagan god societies. Have they contributed anything comparable in inventions to humanity? You may say "Well, look at Japan and electronics." However, Japan largely has taken American technology and improved or worked with it to bring their products to the world. Most of the beneficial inventions of humanity have come from America or christian Euroean countries. For example, the Gutenburg printing press. No, we would be doing these backward Moslem countries an eternal service by bringing christianity to them.

I know that some here will bring up the crusades and other christian blunders, but those were not justified by christian biblical teaching. They were men acting apart from the leading of The Holy Spirit.

We must not be ashamed to embrace our christian heritage as Americans. Because of that heritage, the world has greatly benefited.

[TexRef]

What is wrong with you people?!?! 50 posts with NO pictures and then 100 more without any other pictures?!?!

FreeRepublic is going downhill.

:)

[ClassicConservative]

The Irish to whom you are referring don't behave like Christians at all.

Gee, sounds like the comments of several million of the Moslem faith describing Osama's gang and the Taliban in general... BTW, when do we start referring to the IRA as "Christian terrorists", just as we attach the tagline "Moslem" terrorist to describe the thugs who do such things?

[Jim Scott]

Doesn't anyone else but me see the "tongue in cheek" satirical nature of that comment?

Yes.

I saw Ann Coulter's words about "killing their leaders and converting them to Christianity" in that now-famous column as sheer hyperbole and not inconsistent with her usual writing style, in which she often uses irony as a vehicle to make a point. I was amazed at the negative reaction she received for it, but I also noted that many - including here on FR - were not fans of Coulter to begin with.

Just as with Jerry Falwell, this statement was mis-used by her detractors as a weapon to diminish Coulter and make her less credible. Doesn't work with me, but I can see how it was an irresistible opportunity for Ann-haters and fake conservatives to knock her down a peg and look righteous and fair-minded in the process. I find the ensuing religious arguments on this topic thread absurd, and simply using this one column of Ann's to launch the old religious arguments we see all the time on FR.

I'm very pleased by the way Ann has handled this silly controversy. No apology, no back-tracking, no 'explaining' and her comments regarding her column being dropped by Nation Review Online don't cry 'censorship' (she wasn't censored - the column ran) and Ann makes lemonade out a lemon by mentioning how NR attempts to appease the left-wing press (I agree) and that she's gotten great publicity from the incident. Good for Ann! She impresses me with the way she performs under critical assault and I expect she'll emerge from this overblown flap as stronger and even more popular.

[Publius6961]

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

You idiot.

Instead, how about the response to "Kill them all for Allah?"
"No you won't!"

You might not have noticed, but we didn't destroy the two towers in Riyahd...

[Physicist]

I'd liken it to Bill Cosby saying, "I want you to go upstairs, and blow that kid's head off with a bazooka!"

In that case, it would be easy for her to say, "come on, you all don't think I was being serious, do you?" But this is what she hasn't done, which is doubly surprising because the public's ability to recognize humor is clearly and understandably at an all-time low right now.

[Anthony Bruni]

First off, there is a difference, if not a huge one, between NR and NR Online. I've been a subscriber to the magazine for years. It is the true NR; the online version is much more casual.

It's probably true that Goldberg does not have the intellectual candlepower of many of the print version's heavyweight contributors, but I would suspect most of you have never read the print version. After all, it costs money and the writing is college-level, which would turn away many of you losers who seemingly can't even spell.

But what is really a laugh is seeing some of you nincompoops criticize what is simply the most intelligent and reliably conservative magazine in the country simply for having standards. Absolutely no one with any brain in their head would call NR "Neo-Marxist." That's akin to calling black white. It's nonsense.

Unlike this site, NR is not a place where just any old right-wing screed is welcome. I've enjoyed Coulter's writing from time to time too, but I'm not going to defend the idiotic things she wrote just because she's good-looking.

[Hail Caesar]

mccain2004, you are probably one of the few McCain supporters on this forum. LOL. Also, your false insinuations and accusations you have made here have revealed your true colors and hidden biases. Since when did you join the ADL? ROTFL