Posted on 02/05/2003 9:41:47 PM PST by JohnHuang2
She wasn't actually "connecting the New York Times with John Kerry", except in the puckish manner discussed below. You're straining for something that wasn't there.
Columnists don't have the luxury of being able to write individual columns for each item on which they want to comment, especially if the items deserve different amounts of treatment.
She wanted to comment on several topics, including the "how can we have a war, we're mourning" silliness, the NYT's avoidance of the Ritter arrests, and Kerry's sudden "discovery" of his Jewish roots to pander for votes. So she could either cover them as a mixed bag, which is extremely common for political columnists, or she could dump two of them and not talk about them at all, while expanding the remaining topic to a full column even if it would require fluff padding to fill the required space.
Obviously the former was a better choice than the latter.
Now there are two ways to handle a mixed bag column. The first is to draw horizontal lines between items to help the transition-impaired (or otherwise place some sort of "new topic alert" markers to aid the less adroit readers). The other is to just make the transition from one topic to another while writing and trust in the intelligence of one's audience to see a segue and understand that it is one.
Coulter's trademark method of doing this is the wry segue -- rather than just start a new topic de novo in an abrupt transition, she likes to tie obvious shifts of topic together with wisecracking remarks that highlight some sort of commonality between the topics, no matter how remote, in a conversational "oh, that reminds me" fashion. Besides being entertaining in its own right for both the writer and the reader (and the more remote, the funnier it is), it's also a good writer's device to keep the reader's attention from wandering or skipping to the next newspaper page, as would be invited by a more obvious "and now for something completely different" break. By the time the reader realizes they're starting a new topic, they're already partway into it.
This technique is even more powerful when trying to keep from getting interrupted (by the host, or another guest) during verbal debates or televised talking-head shows, where it's hard to regain the "floor" once you've lost it.
If you're misled by the headline, remember that columnists don't usually pick the headline, the "host" publication does. And even if the author chooses it, it's better to headline the primary topic in the piece than to try to list all mixed-bag topics in a short headline.
You say that she "needs a good editor", but it looks as if she's doing fine on her own on her compositional decisions.
It could be worse. Ted Kennedy is Lard of the Dunce.
Coulter and Noonan say the same things, but Coulter has more of a blue-collar, in-your-face, comedic value to her writing.
I think she's a much better writer than Maureen Dowd.
I think she is also wondering why in the hell Kerry isn't calling for Saddam's head yesterday, given the fact that Israel will be nuked if he gets "the bomb".
LOL!!!!!! Anything, anything to stop the war! She is soooo good.
Thanks John for this fine article.
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.