Andrew Sullivan: It’s all getting a little hysterical (Ann Coulter = Michael Moore)

The Sunday Times (U.K.) ^ | 07/06/03 | Andrew Sullivan

[jedwardtremlett]

You don't have to be a published author - or even a writer - to recognize that a book is poorly written or edited, much less that it's tedious. You just have to have a sense of what a well written, well-edited book is.

Maybe you should stop asking her how many books she's written, and ask her to provide examples of what she means.

J

[jedwardtremlett]

Keep in mind, though, that being on the New York Times list doesn't necessarily mean a darn thing.

The book list doesn't rank SALES - instead it ranks how many books were ordered from the publishers. This is why books you've never heard of show up on the list for one week, and then promptly disappear the next: it was all hype and smoke, and then it just evaporated.

Now, if the book STAYS there for quite some time, then you've got something to go on. But remember that Michael Moore's screed was up there for a long time, too. As is the Hildebeast's 'history.' So being up there doesn't make the book right or the author on the right track, does it? : )

J

[ladyinred]

Ann Coulter's book is dynamite. I can imagine that the left will do everything in their power to destroy the messenger. The info she reveals, well documented at that, is not stuff they want their base to read. Not to worry, the types who vote for them are too busy watching reality TV while not caring about what they should pay attention to.

[an amused spectator]

To Andrew Sullivan:

As Brendan Nyhan, the media critic, has documented, her flights of fancy go back a long way. No punches are pulled. Ted Kennedy is an “adulterous drunk”...

I guess I missed something here, Andrew. Teddy f**ks around on his wife, and he's a drunk. Coulter must need some English larnin', and I must too.

Maybe we both missed that course in post-modern deconstruction, where we learn that a married booze-hound who perennially chases strange isn't an "adulterous drunk".

[an amused spectator]

To Andrew Sullivan:

Here are a few comments about “liberals” that Coulter has deployed over the years: “Liberals are fanatical liars.” Liberals are “devoted to class warfare, ethnic hatred and intolerance”. Liberals “hate democracy because democracy requires persuasion and compromise rather than brute political force”.

Geezus, Sullivan - we're being forgiving by not shooting the lying c**ks**kers out of hand, all the while that they're trying to steal our money and our guns so they can clap our a**es in a gulag with impunity.

Did you just fall off the turnip truck, boy?

[sd-joe]

>> "How much backup does Moore provide in "Stupid White Men"?"

Good question. I don't know since I have never read it, but I would bet that there is not much.

[jonathonandjennifer]

I wish it had better lighting. It's a great pic.

Yes; I've tried to zoom in and crop it, but it gets very "pixelated".

[an amused spectator]

Ron Radosh, one of the most reputable scholars who has studied the McCarthy era in great detail, is appalled at the damage Coulter has done to the work he and many others have painstakingly done over the years.

Like an effing liberal, or anybody else, ever gave a c**p about anything a McCarthy scholar has, or had to say in this age of minimum literacy.

.

This is the world's smallest violin, and it's playing just for you, Radosh.

[an amused spectator]

If they know first that Kennedy is screwing up our educational system and trying to fiddle with health care, you win in the long run.

They'll find out about that from the liberal media just after they find out that Bill and Hillary's pal Margaret Milner-Richardson was auditing their political enemies during the Clinton administration.

Which is to say - never.

Boy, you sure talk a lot of Clinton on this forum.

[dogbyte12]

Let's review. I think Clinton was a crappy president whose softening up of our military led to 9-11. I believe that Ted Kennedy is trying to pull Hillary care II. I believe that Dean is a socialist.

What, do you want me to grunt like a caveman to be acceptable to you? Call me a Kemp/Goldwater republican if ya like, but oh well. I am not going to pretend to be anything I ain't. I like Jonah better than Ann. I prefer Michael Medved over Michael Savage. I am pro-life, but against the war on drugs. I am pro War in Iraq, but was against Somalia. Sue me.

[nobdysfool]

What the hell is wrong with Ann, that SHOULD read: BLOATED MURDERING ADULTEROUS DRUNK.

Contrary to what Sullivan would like people to believe, Ann was being kind...

[CyberAnt]

Q. If you find so much that is unworthy of reverence in the United States, then why do you live here?

A. Why do men go to zoos?

- H. L. Mencken, from Miscellaneous Notes, Prejudices, Fifth Series , 1926, p. 304. First printed in the American Mercury, Sept., 1924, p. 63
_________________________________________________________

Since the above is your FReeper page - you and I have nothing to discuss. If your "friend" wants to reply to my questions, she needs to stop hiding behind someone else and answer the question instead of being rude and insulting and calling me names. Besides, you are actually sticking your nose in where it doesn't belong!!

[BraveMan]

And you haven't even seen my pictures!

Patiently waiting . . .

[Tax-chick]

Sorry, the Net-knight refuses to scan them. Suffice to say I'm no Ann Coulter, which is good or bad, depending on how one feels about famine.

[an amused spectator]

I believe that Ted Kennedy is trying to pull Hillary care II.

And as I pointed out before, and you ignored: "They'll find out about that [Kennedy's shennanigans] from the liberal media just after they find out that Bill and Hillary's pal Margaret Milner-Richardson was auditing their political enemies during the Clinton administration. Which is to say - never."

What, do you want me to grunt like a caveman to be acceptable to you

Your posts have never been real subtle, db. They're a step up from grunting.

I guess brilliant hundred pound conservative blondes scare unibrows like you. ;-)

[Aquinasfan]

Coulter’s answer to that dilemma is twofold: look amazing and ratchet up the rhetoric against the left until it has the subtlety and nuance of a car alarm.

Bingo. It's a very lucrative schtick. The question though is whether she helps or hinders the conservative cause. Overall, I'd say she's a negative.

Then again, she's the perfect person to put up against the Carville types in a one-on-one debate.

[dirtboy]

Uh.. comparing the scruples of Coulter and Moore is like comparing apples to a**holes.

That's not a fair comparison - after all, a sphincter has a useful purpose in life.

[an amused spectator]

She has impact only with those who already agree with her and don't want any kind of real dialogue in politics in America, only labelling and demonization.

Yep, them ignerent rednecks on the Right is tryin' to quash "any kind of real dialogue in politics in America".

Meanwhile, the enlightened folk on the Left are trying desperately to start a real dialogue, reaching out to us Righty haters with supplication in their minds and love in their hearts.

Get real. We're in a war with the Left, and they've been giving "Tarleton's Quarter" for a few decades now.

[Buckeye Bomber]

That's a real classy comment. Obviously the answer to the question in your tagline is "no."

[Tax-chick]

Thanks for the feedback!