Ann Coulter on C-SPAN: SUNDAY (8/11/02) - 8pm Eastern, 5pm Pacific - LIVE discussion thread

www.booknotes.org ^ | August 11, 2002 | C-SPAN Booknotes - 8pm & 11pm (Eastern)

[RonDog]

SUNDAY, August 11, 2002
starting at 8 pm (Eastern) - 5 pm (Pacific)

Ann Coulter, in a ONE HOUR interview with Brian Lamb - on C-SPAN's Booknotes

From www.booknotes.org:

This Sunday on TV

August 11 

Ann Coulter, Slander: Liberal Lies About the American Right • the Program • Discuss | Review the Book • Watch Sunday on C-SPAN   at 8pm/11pm ET

You can WATCH Ann Coulter on C-Span
(or just LISTEN)
LIVE over the Internet, at:
www.c-span.org/watch

[FreeTheHostages]

Guy, RonDog is right. Matt and Ann are friends. It's a fact. They showed up for the recent White House Media fete together.

[FreeTheHostages]

got to vote with leadpenny on this one. sure, everyone has a bias, but since all grownups are suposed to know that, you can get more raw information from someone who is at least trying to spin too overtly. CSPAN rules.

[RonDog]

What is Ann's screen name? Do you know?

I think that Ann primarily LURKS here, but from a previous thread:

Someone said Ann's screen name on Free Republic is "Ann Coulter", but when I go to find her in the forum there is only:

Ann Coulter signed up 2000-03-24.

---

Allow me to elaborate. Back around that time, a few celebrity conservatives stopped by for a live thread discussion, set up by JimRob or whoever else was involved. So for about an hour or so, there was a Q&A between Ann and the Freepers. As far as I know, she hasn't posted under that account since and just lurks here on occasion.

Other celebrity guests at that time for live Q&As included Pat Buchanan...I forget who else may have stopped by...

Pat Buchanan signed up 2000-03-24.

I don't believe he's posted here since then either.

95 posted on 8/3/02 8:26 AM Pacific by CounterCounterCulture

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

I know better, now, where you're coming from.. I can take a little bit of Rush and probably more of C-SPAN.

Question: You had to leave today to spend a year on a deserted island and had to choose between Rush or C-SPAN being piped to you. Only one?

Leaving aside the 24/7 nature of C-Span, no question it'd be Rush. But you see, Rush plays off of journalism, so you'd miss some of the point if you were hearing only him.

C-Span was far better when they didn't ration the conservative callers they'd air. Then it was balanced--liberal journalist, conservative callers. Now . . .

[yoswif]

"The bias of C-SPAN resides in the fact that it's representatives are neutral"

The bias of C-SPAN is the same as the rest of the Washington establishment; protect the economy and real property values of the Washington D.C. area. Based on current law, every child in America is going to have to pay an 82% lifetime federal tax rate to maintain all the bureaucracies and programs in their current state. What would happen to the Washington D.C. area economy and real property values in the Washington D.C. area if the planned lifetime federal tax rate for America's children were reduced to a morally responsible level? That's why no one in the Washington establishment, including C-SPAN, will question or make critical comments about their plan to impose an 82% lifetime federal tax rate on every child in America. The only way to reduce the lifetime federal tax rate on America's children to a morally responsible level, like 10%, would be to repeal virtually every law and ablolish virtually every bureaucracy and program enacted in the last century and start over. Such an act of compassion would cause mass unemployment in the Washington D.C. area and make real property in the Washington D.C. area, including the homes of the Washington establishment and C-SPAN employees, virtually worthless.

[KansasGirl]

Ann was absolutely BRILLIANT last night!!! She is my idol!!!

[Donna Lee Nardo]

I saw the C-Span program and it was great. Coulter is excellent when she is not interrupted and talked over. At least 3 different times during the interview, I found myself thinking: "wow, someone else who is articulating some of the things that bother me about the looney liberal left, but this someone is voicing it publicly."

When Coulter is left in peace to make her points, she hits the nails on the heads. On other shows, however, she should try to emulate the demoncraps and yell shrilly over them as they interrupt her. Too often, she allows them to cut her off without making her points. I know it is dirty to treat the demoncraps like that -- we non-demoncraps tend to be polite. But the only defense against the dirty tricks of the demoncraps is a powerful offense using the demoncraps own dirty tactics.

[Dutchy]

FYI....See the thread for pictures and comments. It was a very entertaining interview, although I was disappointed in the quality of Lamb's questions...

[leadpenny]

Thank you, Donna. My sentiments exactly.

RonDog, we should all try to email a note of thanks to Brian and C-SPAN for the nice job they did. If I think of it, I will link this thread so the folks there on Louisiana Ave. know how much we appreciate them. :-)

[leadpenny]

Demlosers posted the entire transcript here

[tgslTakoma]

Ya know... I think she must be related to me somehow ;-) The lefties in Takoma Park (and the rest of anti-gunners in MD) call me the same kind of names they call her, when I point out the idiocy of their "platform." Of course Ann Coulter has a much more educated and polished delivery when she describes liberals/democrats, etc. I love it!

OK, so she's probably not related to me; but I'd be proud to have her in my family. And she'd fit right in with the rest of the outspoken blonde women in our clan.

[leadpenny]

Of course Ann Coulter has a much more educated and polished delivery when she describes liberals/democrats, etc

You mean telling the Gore supporters to, "Get out of my face, dog breath" in November 2000 wasn't polished?

Speaking of fun, we need a reason for a FReep. Maybe when it's a little cooler, eh?

[A CA Guy]

Now that my dear friends, is a woman!

[CyberAnt]

Thanks so much for repeating that - it was sooooooo worth it. Yes, I agree it was probably the first time a "good" conservative (with the exception of Rush - because he has his own show and can say what he wants), was given the time to really explain how the media covered up and coddled the dems over impeachment.

One good thing came out of it though. Do you remember during impeachment there was a website called SenateVote.com?? At this site, each of the Senators was listed, along with a short statement by each of them regarding impeachment. Of course, even though they have sworn to remain neutral until they vote, they all gave their opinion of whether or not they would vote to kick Clinton out of office.

Even though I feel like my senators are not worth wasting my time on - still, I like them to know they have not fooled everybody. I went to the site and proceeded to send Boxer a message regarding her statement. I called her on the carpet for not recusing herself; seeing as how she was related to the Clintons by marriage.

What happened after I posted my message really threw me for a loop! I began to get all kinds of e-mails from democrats who agreed with me. One woman wrote that even though we had different ideas on how government should run, we totally agreed with each other on honesty, integrity, morality, etc. This woman also apologized to me for Boxer's actions, and she also said California deserved better than Boxer. She said she and her husband were never going to vote democrat again.

Whether she kept that promise or not I don't know - but the point is, her letter was only a sample of the type of emails I got - ALL FROM DEMOCRATS. I don't think the McAwful bunch realize they have alienated their base. They might have fooled them during the 2000 election, but the aftermath was a real eye opener. Then - 9/11.

Also, Rush gave a great set of stats about a year after the impeachment. He said during impeachment, 75% of the public did not want Clinton removed from office. However, ONE YEAR LATER, 75% believed he should have been removed. If you put that together with 9/11 = B I N G O - the public is awake and madder than hell.

I believe Ann Coulter is just the tip of the iceberg as far as people being outraged at the slander of the media toward the President and all republicans.

I'll get off my soapbox now!! Thanks!

[RonDog]

LOL!

There have been MANY similar "converts" to the Right side recently.

From the TRANSCRIPT of Ann's appearance on C-SPAN, posted as:

Slander: Liberal Lies About the American Right
booknotes.org ^ | August 11, 2002 | Ann Coulter
Posted on 08/12/2002 2:14 PM Pacific by demlosers

-- snip --

LAMB: Why didn't Regnery publish this book like they published "High Crimes and Misdemeanors?"

COULTER: For one thing, I had originally gone to Harper Collins because of Robert Jones. He knew of me I guess from TV. We had a mutual friend Ellie Burkett (ph), one of my liberal friends I thank in the acknowledgements, and she set us up, introduces us and he was just so wonderful. He was so wonderful. He was my little conversion case. I was trying to turn him into a right-winger.

While I was writing my book, we'd go out to dinner really quite frequently, if not once a month, once every two months and I'd wear him down, wear him down, get him used to what was coming. He called my agent before. This book never even went to auction in the first place because he called my agent after we had first had dinner and said he wanted an early copy of it and please send it to me.

Regnery was looking at it first and he called her up and said how much do I have to pay so that you don't put this book up for auction, and I really liked him and he really wanted my book, so we went with him and then I love Regnery and I say a lot of very nice things about them.

LAMB: How many...

COULTER: I wanted to see what it was like having a mainstream publisher.

LAMB: How many copies of "High Crimes and Misdemeanors" did you sell?

COULTER: About a quarter million.

LAMB: That's a lot of money.

COULTER: It's never enough money. No, in fact someone just told me, I don't know if this is true, that the median income for a writer in America is about $2,000. If you want to make money, being a writer isn't the way to go. My agent e-mailed me recently saying, because I actually do have ideas for what the next book's going to be.

The original copy of this book was 600 pages, but no one will publish a 600-page book because apparently very few want to read a 600-page book, so this was pretty much the first 200 pages. We cut it down from there. So I already have a rough first draft of something I would like to be the next book. My agent e-mailed me and said I know you don't care about money and you just want to change the world, but I'm your agent. Can I care about money? Can you please send me a proposal?

LAMB: Did they give you a big advance on this book?

COULTER: Not as big as it was with Harper Collins, which I then of course had to pay back. It was a bad year last year. Not only did I not get the second half of my advance, but I had to pay what I'd already gotten back from, as you say, Rupert Murdock's company.

LAMB: Isn't that a strange thing though that Rupert Murdock's company wouldn't publish your book?

COULTER: I don't think he has much oversight.

LAMB: But isn't it strange though that someone of his political persuasion wouldn't have a company that would publish your book?

COULTER: I suppose so, though my impression is that the publishing world is just very liberal and the people who go into it are very liberal. And, by the way, I had turned Robert into a conservative.

LAMB: How old was he?

COULTER: He was young. He was about 43. The night he died, Ellie and I got together with his partner, who said he was becoming a conservative because you know he lived in Manhattan. He's in the publishing industry. He said you know Robert had been every kind of radical. He was the spokesman for Act Up. He was a college radical. He was a communist radical and he finally figured out the only way to be a radical in New York, in Manhattan, was to be a conservative...

more

[He Rides A White Horse]

Ann did a great job. A very non-political friend of mine greeted me at his door the other night, and and right out of his mouth was, "HRAWH, come see this. You'll be all about this one. She's got it all together"

I go in, and take one look at the screen, and yup, it's Ann's visage on the screen.

Just smiled and told him, yeah that's FR heroine Ann Coulter telling it like it is.

Anyway, this guy was all wanting to buy her book and have it signed.

Way to go Ann.

[He Rides A White Horse]

If Anne is doing any book signings in the Philadelphia area, please notify the PA contingent.

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

got to vote with leadpenny on this one. sure, everyone has a bias, but since all grownups are suposed to know that, you can get more raw information from someone who is at least trying [not] to spin too overtly. CSPAN rules.

Let's review the bidding . . .

Dan Rather reads The New York Times and insinuates powerfully that no other viewpoint is legitimate

Rush Limbaugh lampoons Dan Rather and points out that you can so believe something without the permission of The New York Times

C-Span broadcasts the one thing, and the other, without endorsing either perspective.

If neither one of them is right, C-Span was wrong to assign value to either one of them by putting them on the air.

If both of them are right, --well, that's just wierd, wouldn't happen.

That leaves the possibility that Dan Rather is right, or--orders of magnitude more likely--that Rush Limbaugh is right. But C-Span makes no distinction between what is almost certainly right, and what is almost certainly wrong. And you are so grateful for the fact that they transmitted the almost-certainly right statement that you think it's a fair trade that they gave equal emphasis to something almost certainly wrong. And accept a call-in show afterwards in which those who agree with the almost-certainly-right position are culled so that they only represent one-third (instead of the naturally occuring four-fifths) of the aired calls.

That kind of thinking goes right along with third-partyism. All democracy can really do is to choose between two candidates; if there's a third candidate then you can never settle the arguments over whether Gore 'really won' Florida because the people who voted for Nader wouldn't have voted for Bush on a bet. But then, they in fact didn't vote for Gore, either . . .

So you go moderate because you can't decide between R and D, and you just assume that "the truth is somewhere in between." Well, as Coulter is pointing out in Slander, in fact one side can be taken at face value (very nearly) and the other side routinely lies through their teeth.

But if "the truth must lie somewhere in between" then the side that can tell the biggest whoppers wins. If I say someone owes me $10 million, and the other party says they don't owe me anything, is it automatically fair to split the difference and award me $5 million? If I'm owed $10 million, then $10 million is what I should have. If I'm a grifter running a con in a courtroom, I should be charged the other fellow's costs and not be awarded a dime. But for that to happen, the jury would have to do the work of making an honest determination of the facts. Splitting the difference is a cop-out.