Aim a little lower Ann.*
*parody. It looks like she is holding a pellet gun. Which, of course, would not shoot anything that would pierce his thick head anyway....
Posted on 07/22/2002 10:48:00 AM PDT by Chi-townChief
If Ann Coulter were a singer, she'd be Ethel Merman. Even her photos are blunt and loud. In the cover shot of Coulter's book, Slander: Liberal Lies About the American Right , she displays the most chilling stare this side of Honey Bunny in "Pulp Fiction."
But despite the vast, left-wing conspiracy working against her, Coulter has appeared on every show this side of "Meet the Osbournes" to plug the book. Slander is No. 1 on the Publishers Weekly list, No. 1 on the New York Times list, No. 3 on amazon.com and No. 1 in the hearts of liberal-bashing Americans from coast to coast.
Seems like a good time to point out just a few of the hateful proclamations, misleading assertions and incorrect statements in the book.
On p. 4, Coulter establishes her tone--and her propensity for twisting quotes like Twizzler sticks to suit her needs--when she writes: "The infernal flag-waving after 9/11 nearly drove liberals out of their gourds. For the left, 'flag-waving' is an epithet. Liberals variously call the flag a 'joke,' 'very, very dumb,' and--most cutting--'not cosmopolitan.' ''
The "joke" quote is attributed to director Robert Altman, who was primarily criticizing the Bush administration. Also, Altman was talking not about genuine displays of patriotism, but the commercialized omnipresence of the flag. As he later told People magazine, "I don't think [the American flag] should be on brassieres."
Hmmm. Sounds likes an opinion Coulter would applaud.
As for the "very, very dumb" remark, the article Coulter cites is a New York Times piece about a controversy in Honolulu last November when an American flag was raised atop the Iolani Palace, the 19th century seat of the Hawaiian monarchy. Reacting to the suggestion that Hawaiians aren't as patriotic as other Americans, University of Hawaii-West Oahu professor Dan Boylan said, "This is when people start acting very, very dumb in their patriotism and flag-waving. I'll take Dan Inouye's empty sleeve as patriotism long before I'll take a passing bumper sticker on my car that says, 'America Forever.' "
Boylan was referring to former U.S. Sen. Daniel K. Inouye, who lost an arm in World War II. And I don't see how you can view his statement as anything but intelligent and pro-American.
Finally there's Coulter's charge that "liberals" call the flag "not cosmopolitan." Once again she lifts a statement out of context and makes a huge generalization about millions of people: those dreaded liberals.
The source Coulter cites, yet again, is a New York Times article. (Coulter hates the New York Times, but she uses it as a research tool more often than an undergrad with a double major.) Noting that the American flag didn't have a huge presence in New York prior to 9/11, historian David Nasaw said, "New York has just been too much of a cosmopolitan town for flag-waving. It is the home of the UN, and a place filled with tourists, with immigrants, with people doing trade."
How Coulter decided that Nasaw is a "liberal" is beyond me. In any case, she either fails to understand or chooses to ignore the fact that Nasaw was using the primary definition of cosmopolitan, i.e., "belonging to all the world." He wasn't saying it was uncool to display the flag, as Coulter charges. And he was talking about New York before 9/11.
So to varying degrees, all three quotes are misrepresented by Coulter as emblematic of the vitriolic rantings of anti-American "liberals."
How utterly bogus.
*****
Coulter peppers her prose with terribly faulty analogies, e.g., "Hiring [George] Stephanopoulos [to do television] would be the equivalent of a major network hiring Chuck Colson immediately after Watergate."
Well, no. Chuck Colson was convicted of obstruction of justice, a felony, and served seven months in prison. Stephanopoulos' biggest crime was writing a self-aggrandizing tell-all book.
Coulter also has a habit of chastising liberals for their methodology and then using the same techniques to make her own points. She argues that it's wrong for liberals to compare Rush Limbaugh to the major news organizations because Limbaugh is "a noted polemicist" engaging in "satirical commentary," yet when Coulter needs examples to back up her claims that news organizations target conservatives, she routinely quotes columnists. Um, aren't they supposed to have opinions?
A careful analysis--hell, a casual read--of Coulter's book reveals that she often shines the spotlight on her own mistakes. On p. 51 she writes, "[F]or the media to . . . call you an 'airhead' [Katie Couric on Ronald Reagan]--well, that makes strong men tremble and weak men liberals."
Except Couric never actually called Reagan an airhead. On p. 133 of her own book, Coulter writes that what Couric said was: "The Gipper was an airhead. That's one of the new conclusions of a new biography of Ronald Reagan that's drawing a tremendous amount of interest and fire today." (The book's author, Edmund Morris, had said his first impression was that Reagan was "an apparent airhead.")
So for Coulter to write that Couric was the one labeling Reagan an airhead, would be, let's see, what's the word? Oh yeah. A lie.
More fun with Ann tomorrow.
rroeper@suntimes.com
Kind of interesting that Roeper chooses to use this comment by Altman to illustrate his point since, as far as writing talent goes, Roeper can't carry Ann Coulter's brassiere.
Me thinks Roeper should stick to reviewing movies with Roger Ebert.
At least when Ebert talks about things outside the cinema he speaks with a modicum of common sense...
Why not. When you want to quote crap you go to the source of that crap. And you can quote me on that RICHARD ROEPER.
Aim a little lower Ann.*
*parody. It looks like she is holding a pellet gun. Which, of course, would not shoot anything that would pierce his thick head anyway....
Dick Roeper. Snuf said.
To that, the obvious answer is, if the speakers "really didn't mean it," they "really shouldn't have said it." To repeat a quote [the Couric / "airihead" thing] is to endorse it. Unless the speakers add, "I do not necessarily agree with this quote." Couric said no such thing.
To reverse a comment from Alexander Pope, 350 years ago, Roeper is "praising Coulter with faint damnation."
Congressman Billybob
The rest of this is postmodernist deconstructive interpretation of the quotes that Coulter used. I just won't hop into that tar pit with these leftist idiots, for whom there is, apparently, legitimate debate on the meaning of the word "is".
I believe he pronounces it "Smoe-ker"
Did it ever occur to him that she was referencing Altman to illustrate how he agrees with her? That the US has made it a joke by putting it on EVERYTHING like Brassieres and the like? And that when people actually display it properly, the libs get pissed off?
If I were Ann, I would take this as validation of my approach and simply pour it on more. It's well past time that the left was mocked and derided in the tones that they are used to dishing out, but not taking.
As a conservative, I can take a little criticism of one of our own. It's not like I have to agree with the criticism. I thought open debate was part of being politically active and aware. I guess all some people can handle is cheerleading and self-adulation.
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.