Coultermania! Time asks “WWACD?” (Update: AC vs. NJ pol on H&C)
posted at 7:48 pm on June 12, 2006 by Allahpundit
Her influence isn’t wholly bad, you know.
The maddening thing about Coulter is that when she’s not talking smack, she’s a trenchant commentator. Watch the video below and you’ll see it in microcosm: the first third is her dissembling over what she actually said about the Jersey Girls; the next third is a spot-on critique of the left’s politics of victimization, particularly as it applies to dear sainted Mother Sheehan; and the last third is her tossing rhetorical molotov cocktails about liberals being anti-god.
Me, I’m just glad the left doesn’t stoop to legitimizing fringe characters with a knack for expressing themselves.
But then, Moore isn’t really a fringe character anymore, is he?
Update: Here’s Coulter on Hannity & Colmes tonight “debating” New Jersey state assemblyman Michael Panter. She calls him a “brownshirt” and accuses him repeatedly of wanting to burn her book; meanwhile, he refuses to criticize Cindy Sheehan for calling Bush every name in the Kos playbook. A match made in heaven.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Love her, hate her. It doesn’t matter one bit, Ann Coulter is the shit. She’s saying things that most of us can’t because we are just one voice in a national stadium of other voices, but she has the media outlets banging on her door and that let’s her message for good or for ill out to millions if not billions of people.
Asmodeus on June 12, 2006 at 8:06 PM
I saw this today. Ann looked and sounded tired, tired of answering the same Q’s to the ‘mis-quoted’ quotes. But, like you pointed out, she was at her best thru the middle of the interview w/ the judge. I thought 50%+ was pretty good, but she still has a way to run fingernails down the chalkboard every now and then, doesnt she. And thats what the moonbats will talk about.
As for Moore, he’s on the fringe of insanity, the Far side.
shooter on June 12, 2006 at 8:15 PM
Moore’s is only a fringe if he has his deadly twinkie in his hand.
Err…did that come out right or what?
Kokonut on June 12, 2006 at 8:23 PM
I don’t think Coulter is even that fringe in terms of ideology—maybe on a couple points, but not overall. It’s her rhetorical style that makes her hard to take seriously.
And I do agree that she can be an above-average commentator in terms of actual substantive insight and argument. That should in fairness be taken into account when considering the way she remains a prominent pundit even despite her style. (At least thus far)
Michael Moore in fact is a more insidious reverse combination: He generally avoids the vicious rhetoric Ann is addicted to—to the contrary, he’s actually very disingenuously genial in his style—but is a hardline Marxist. The more mainstream left willfully ignore his and Mother Sheehan’s radicalism and just try to pluck out what they find useful about them for their own Fabian ends.
Alex K on June 12, 2006 at 8:42 PM
I watched this three times
I didn’t see Ann say anything that wasn’t:
A. True
B. Effective
C. Respectful – I saw no bomb throwing just uncomfortable facts
EricPWJohnson on June 12, 2006 at 8:49 PM
The things Ann says won’t hurt our troops.
The things Michael Moore says causes damage to our national security and ultimately gets our Troops and US killed….
Richard Davis on June 12, 2006 at 8:50 PM
just watched michelle on o’reilly,
she is simply the best thing since sliced bread.
keep up the good fight michelle!
mike hale on June 12, 2006 at 8:55 PM
AC is inconvenient truth to the lefties.
Mojave Mark on June 12, 2006 at 8:59 PM
There comes a time when normal communications does not work when attempting to bring to light outrageous behavior. When all else has failed, it becomes necessary to use the tried-and-true method of using outrageousness to bring the behavior to light.
Enter Ann Coulter who, in her outrageous fashion, has said – enough is enough!
Since 9/11, the democrats have been parading grieving men, women, and children in front of the public in a blatant means to regain political power.
Remember, with democrats: THE ENDS JUSTIFIES THE MEANS.
Did Ann get every ones attention? You better damn well believe it!
And the more attention they give her, the more books she sells.
GO ANN!
pocomoco on June 12, 2006 at 9:00 PM
I agree with AC,
This lady is saying what many right wing bomb throwers are to cowardly to say…….the ugly truth about the Left’s use of “sympathy spokespeople”. Don’t like the message, be sure to shoot the messenger.
Chief1942 on June 12, 2006 at 9:03 PM
If Gore can sell his package of eco-hysteria lies as inconvenient, then surely Ann can present an opinion that is just as inconvenient, but far more truthful.
speed647 on June 12, 2006 at 9:07 PM
The truth isn’t always pretty, but it’s the truth. If it’s not pretty to tell it or bring it into view, just how ugly are those the message is about?
Stop shooting the messenger. Liberals prosper because Conservatives don’t do enough to stop them. Exposing them and voting them out of office and keeping them off the bench is the only effective way to control them… at least until the law changes and we’re once again, allowed to shoot them.
RolandHall on June 12, 2006 at 9:09 PM
What she SHOULD do is exactly what the liberals do, don’t talk about ANYTHING they want to, just use the air time to promote the basics of her book, pointing out that all the hoopla so far revolves around stuff they HEARD her say(of course, they HEARD what they wanted to, not what she SAID) rather than any liberal attempting to argue the truth that the book clearly points out, that they are totally Godless except for their liberal religion.
NRA4Freedom on June 12, 2006 at 9:13 PM
“I saw this today. Ann looked and sounded tired…”
******************
I agree, she’s tired of stupid people, disgraceful morons, that crawling out from under rocks to criticize when they have no clue… they couldn’t buy one.
I’ve defended her for years but what I’ve found is that the people, even conservatives, that hate her are truly too stupid to understand. Then they attempt to repeat what she has said and they ruin it because they can’t begin to comprehend.
She’s great, she even steals some of my ideas… : )
For years I’ve been telling people that leftist ideas and communism is dogma and that evolution at this point is nothing more than philosophy.
Another idea, for the future – store this away – people will begin to realize that science empiricism is science imperialism.
ar_basin on June 12, 2006 at 9:18 PM
Missed Michell on OR. I’d have made a poing of watching if I had known in time. So, I don’t know what she said… But given rumors I’ve heard, there isn’t wholehearted support by Michelle for AC’s latest vwenture.
I don’t like to see our beloved hostess and Coulter at loggerheads…Or even mild disagreement: I absolutely adore (and respect) Michelle in every way, and I like and respect Coulter, even though I occasionally find her a little ‘over the top’.
Different styles, ladies, but you are both ‘Generals’ in the fight against dangerous liberalism, and our side is diminished when you take your disagreement public, I think.
AC was on H&C as I typed this… But I didn’t really listen. This whole three sided debate has gotten tiresome.
LegendHasIt on June 12, 2006 at 9:40 PM
Just posted the video of Michelle, LHI.
Allahpundit on June 12, 2006 at 9:41 PM
Great! Thanks!
LegendHasIt on June 12, 2006 at 9:46 PM
The more the liberals argue with Ann, the better she makes her point.
You liberals should stop asking her to apologize. You can criticize her all you wanted, but don’t demand her to apologize!
Once youy ask her to apologize, you are trying to force her to take only one position, and that is your position. That, my friend, in limitling her freedom of speech.
Gee wheeze, how come you liberals are so dumb and stupid?
I am glad we are only simplistic and rigid.
easy87us on June 12, 2006 at 10:23 PM
I can see it now. Every Rep running in November will be challenged by his/her Dem opponent to “repudiate Ann Coulter.”
Sooner or later, Ann will have to “expand” on her remarks and say that the widows are enjoying the notariety which has come as a result of their husbands’ deaths.
Labamigo on June 12, 2006 at 10:27 PM
I read this on Newsmax:
“That’s what Ad Age columnist Simon Dumenco suggested when he asked Coulter, “would it kill you to do us all a favor and kill yourself?”
liberals and physical violence seem to come hand in hand.
How come they are so angry?….Ann must be doing something right!
easy87us on June 12, 2006 at 10:40 PM
Everytime I turn on Fox, Ann Coulter is coming up. She winds up biotch slapping some whiner. It’s been a great week on Fox.
Hening on June 12, 2006 at 10:42 PM
Labamigo said “Sooner or later, Ann will have to “expand” on her remarks and say that the widows are enjoying the notariety which has come as a result of their husbands’ deaths.”
The point she was making was exactly that. If the leftards didn’t get it the first time they never will. I understood her point perfectly without needing “clarification”.
As far as Michael Moore…well I’m sure he has his hand on his twinkies constantly.
Cpilot on June 12, 2006 at 11:34 PM
Allahpundit,
Here is some irony for you.
In Ann’s book “How to Talk to a Liberal (If You Must)” she states, “Weak and frightened conservatives crave liberal approval and will do anything to get it. The telltale sign is how quickly a conservative will publicly attack another conservative. These masters of the featherweight insight especially enjoy deploring evangelical Christians. (To do it right, every time denounce a devout Christian or Jew for being superstitious, intolerant ignoramus, you must praise radical Islam as “a religion of peace.”)” (Quoting Michelle’s article about Ann calling Muslims “ragheads” fits the bill.)
“Conservatives” like you, Confederate Yankee, Hugh Hewitt, Ace of Spades, O’Reilly, and others have quickly jumped on the bandwagon to attack Ann for her comments.
I find it ironic that she stated this in her previous book and it came true with her new book. Way to go Allahpundit, you helped prove the points Ann has made by attacking her publicly.
cmc on June 13, 2006 at 12:55 AM
Allahpundit:
I am somewhat distressed by your apparent criticism of Ann Coulter. Your use of the term “talking smack” seems to imply that you don’t think Coulter is serious about her theories because she uses examples that some people — predominantly on the left — find outrageous. I’m afraid you hit a liberal landmine designed to discredit Coulter herself rather than her theories.
All weekend long we heard liberal commentators use the same device to discredit Ann’s theory of “victim infallibility.” Lawrence O’Donnell was most succinct in implying that he knows the real Ann Coulter and she really doesn’t believe a fraction of what she espouses; rather, Ann uses outrageous rhetoric merely to sell more books. The same tactic was used by liberals against Rush Limbaugh more than 15 years ago. It didn’t work then and it shouldn’t work against Ann Coulter. If you and other conservatives prop up that liberal tactic, you are doing Ann and conservatism as a whole a disservice.
Ann has never given any interviewer even a hint of disbelief in her own theories or rhetoric. On the contrary, she has consistently pointed out that Michael Berg, Cindy Sheehan, and the Jersey girls are all examples of the liberal tactic to stifle political debate and conservative ideology. Liberals cannot debate the issue; therefore, they must denegrate and discredit the individuals espousing conservative ideas. If we as conservatives give any support to that tactic by accusing Ann — or any other conservative for that matter — of “talking smack,” we run the risk of discrediting our own messengers. We must be careful in our use of descriptive terms. If you have a disagreement with Ann’s theory, state it in clear terms; don’t join the liberal chorus of discreditation.
csjd on June 13, 2006 at 2:28 AM
Ann says it like it is, she does not sugar coat her message. The left is afraid of Ann, because she is right. Liberalism is a religon, the worship of goverment, this I know. We are not allowed to crticise Cindy Sheehan, or the Jersey girls, but the left can crticise Ann. The left can speak, we can not. “Big Brother” will tell us when we are allowed to speak. Whitaker Chambers got it right: “Communism the Worlds second oldest religon whose words were whispered under the tree of knowledge of good and and evil: “And ye shall be as Gods.” Communism, he said is “the vison of man without God.” These were the incredible opposites-God or Man, Soul or Mind, Freedom or Communism.” Ann Coulter “Treason”, pgs. 8-9. Ann is not afraid of the truth. Why I ask myself are so many conservatives afraid of the truth? The libs have no one to debate Ann, or Michelle, Rush, or Sean because the libs know in their heart that the people like Ann are right. The libs are debating a false premise. Of course libs have tiny pea brains to begin with anyway.
birdman on June 13, 2006 at 5:13 AM
I forgot to add. You have to have courage to face the truth.
birdman on June 13, 2006 at 5:23 AM
Ann Coulter is an extreme threat to the left and an effective and estimable speaker and writer precisely BECAUSE her words are hard-hitting. She is sought for television interviews, book signings and personal appearances BECAUSE she is controversial. If Ann Coulter tempered or minced her words of truth, they would not be heard.
Unlike others, I do not believe it is acceptable for the likes of Sheehan, Berg, Murtha, Kennedy, Pelosi, Kerry, Franken and the New York Times to spit THEIR venom without retort.
And the stupid, restrictive “We are better than them” mania that allows the enemy to do as it pleases but prevents us from properly fighting back is what is getting our Marines railroaded in Iraq and eventually, if widely practiced, will get more of us killed.
Ann Coulter is not only correct, she is a blessing.
ForYourEdification on June 13, 2006 at 7:30 AM
Ann Coulter may well be the worst nightmare that the liberals face today. She can spark off a fire by rubbing 2 words together, she totally destroys the liberal attempt to play terrorist by using women as shields, and they cannot disprove her statements. Thank goodness that there is 1 conservative that acts like we have been winning elections.
People worry too much about feelings today instead of worrying about how our [mostly liberal] politicians are screwing us Americans, and in the meantime we conservatives are painted as mean spirited racist biggoted homophobes because we have a moralistic set of judeo-christian values. How does that feel?
Way to go, Ann! Git er done!
DannoJyd on June 13, 2006 at 7:59 AM
birdman – great comments!
It won’t be long before the Liberals will OUTLAW ANY RELIGIOUS PHOTOS OR STATUES FROM CHURCHES!!
Richard Davis on June 13, 2006 at 8:46 AM
I have to say that Ann pointed out another truth that politically correct conservatives ( RINOs and almost RINOs) refuse to say….”these liberals are behaving like BROWN SHIRTS!”..
Their tactics are the same. Their propagandas are of the same style, and are approaching that of Nazism in spins and fraud. Rush calls them Drive By Media. He sure knows how to use the right words to describe verbal violence performed by the liberals.
These methods to seize power actually are not monopolized by the Nazis, because Communists used the same approaches!
Shooting, burning, slashing tires, threatening, smearing, dominating news media, large mass parades, brainwashing in schools, forming Kos”Jung Volks” for their propaganda machine, …on and on…
Now all they need is a “charismatic” leader….
easy87us on June 13, 2006 at 8:53 AM
“I don’t think Coulter is even that fringe in terms of ideology—maybe on a couple points, but not overall. It’s her rhetorical style that makes her hard to take seriously.”..by Alex
You are so wrong, Alex. Are you telling me that the liberals have not taken Ann seriously???????????….LOL
20 liberal congressmen launch a crusade against Ann ..is not serious?????
Wow…do we need to burn Ann by the stick to make it serious?
easy87us on June 13, 2006 at 8:55 AM
Ann’s not fringe, she’s just rude as hell. Buchannon is fringe. Robertson is fringe. How many of Ann Coulter’s political opinions do you disagree with? Not many, I’d bet.
Kevin M on June 13, 2006 at 9:29 AM
Ann Coulter is an exquisite satirist,the Jonathan Swift of contemporary America. Apparently, readers in the early 18th century were much more erudite since there was not nearly so much outrage over Swift’s pamphlet, “A Modest Proposal” (in which he to offers a gruesome solution to the “Irish problem,”) as there has been to Ann’s suggestion that the Witches of East Brunswick are enjoying the notoriety, infallibility, and easy media access that their misfortune has brought them. Her stinging criticisms of liberalism are not only effective, they are necessary; more importantly, they are absolutely valid.
http://www.sparknotes.com/lit/modestproposal/summary.html
I wonder what a pound of liberal head cheese would go for.
IrishEi on June 13, 2006 at 9:44 AM
I heard Ann on Laura Ingraham’s show (6/8) and Laura was tut-tutting her for her “enjoying their husbands’ deaths” comments, just like many other (you’d think) ideological allies.
Ann’s problem – and it IS a problem – is that she is so contemptuous of and bored with the idiotic and disingenuous folks on the Left, that her impatience makes her commit faux pas like this which allows the Teason Media to focus all discussion on what a meanyhead she is, forcing the merits of the book to the sidelines. Who cares if she’s 110% right on the merits when she’s getting killed for self-inflicted foot wounds.
My g/f was listening with me and agrees that if only she had added two simple words to her comment – i.e. “…women are enjoying THE BENEFITS of their husbands’ deaths… – then the context from the book would’ve been preserved and this distracting firestorm would’ve been much smaller and manageable.
Ann knows damn well how the Treason Media works and shouldn’t be handing them clubs with which to beat her and her message with. She knows that the Treason Media is all about lies and distortions. Take a minute and a breath, Ann, before saying something profoundly unhelpful to the cause again. Don’t censor yourself; just prevent your enemies from getting free hits on you.
DirkBelig on June 13, 2006 at 10:16 AM
IrishEi:
If you think that Ann Coulter’s use of the Jersey girls to illustrate her theory of “victim infallibility” is satire, you are sadly mistaken. There is nothing satirical about it. It is a fact that these women, like Cindy Sheehan subsequently, are trotted out by both the media and the DNC as “experts” on war, terrorism, and foreign policy when their only apparent qualification is the death of a husband or son. While they espouse their contempt for the President and conserativism in general in the national media, they are “immune” from criticism because they are grieving victims of the acts or policies they criticize. This is a strategy of the liberals to stifle opposition and debate from conservatives and supporters of the administration. How you can interpret Coulter’s illustration of that strategy as satire is beyond me. You must begin to understand the bigger issue and the purpose of Coulter’s examples before discrediting her by labeling her a satirist.
csjd on June 13, 2006 at 10:21 AM
csjd:
I understand exactly what is going on!
To begin with, my labeling Ann as a satirist and likening her to Swift, arguably one of the world’s greatest satirists, was a compliment that any author would relish. Ann’s satire is not her strategy; it is simply the literary subgenre she uses–her style, if you will. I would add that satire is often very complex and frequently misunderstood, which probably explains why her writing is subjected to such harsh backlash; too few understand good satire. Furthermore, most of the uproar is centered upon Ann’s statement that the widows are “enjoying their husbands’ deaths.” Sadly, this only exposes the numerous illiterates in the MSM and government whose reading comprehension is so poor that they cannot see past the literal denotation of a word and understand its connotation. From dictionary.com:
en·joy ( P ) Pronunciation Key (n-joi)
v. en·joyed, en·joy·ing, en·joys
v. tr.
To receive pleasure or satisfaction from.
To have the use or benefit of: enjoys good health.
Ann was not suggesting that they were dancing in the streets because their husbands were dead; rather, she rightly exposed the fact that they are benefitting from their new-found notoriety as a result of their husbands’ notorious murders. (See, I get it.)
IrishEi on June 13, 2006 at 11:11 AM
“Who cares if she’s 110% right on the merits when she’s getting killed for self-inflicted foot wounds.”
************************
She hasn’t died yet… those must be some amazing feet… And I doubt she will die.
Listen, last night Michelle Malkin was on the Bill O Reilly show and her last point was not heard – she supposedly had the last word.
Maybe she should take the Ann Coulter approach… then her last word would definitely be heard.
Michelle was visibly frustrated that her voice wasn’t heard and Ann is never in that position.
Listen, let us wait until some 10,000 are killed in Washington D.C. on the Metro Rail Line (subway). Remember Spain?
Then Ann Coulter will say something great – once again – maybe then you will take to enjoying her.
ar_basin on June 13, 2006 at 11:21 AM
The thing that gets me AllahPundit is that you have a clue about so many other things, but are absolutely braindead when it comes to Coulter. It’s getting old. If you detest her that much then please just shut up about her. It’s much more interesting to read what you have to say about other things.
Coulter gives the liberals a extremely TINY bit of their own back, but from the position of being RIGHT (most of the time, at least) rather than airheaded foolishness. And even when she gets a bit testy, it’s when she’s under LITERAL attack from retarded liberal morons like Colmes or some other liberal idiot who is full of hot air and big ideas but is so incompetent that they couldn’t pour liquid out of a boot with instructions written on the heel.
Conservatives DESPERATELY need MORE Ann Coulters… FOR NOW. Eventually, if we are extremely lucky and the world doesn’t end first, we might not need her current style anymore, once the ultra-idiots of the far left are finally marginalized as the kook fringe they should be. And unlike some of her immitators (and detractors) she’s actually intelligent enough that when her current style is no longer needed she’ll either shut up or develop a new one. Until then, we BADLY need her, so please quit bashing her. You make yourself look as stupid as Colmes or the governor on that H&C segment did. And you’re not that stupid.
RH
RobertHuntingdon on June 13, 2006 at 11:56 AM
IrishEi:
You absolutely get it and I agree with you for the most part. My disagreement with you is that Coulter’s example of the Jersey girls is not satire. I further agree that she often uses satire in her literary work on during TV appearances. (Rush calls it illustrating absurdity by being absurd.) However, the Jersey girls’ “enjoyment” when taken in the proper context as you correctly cited, is a statement of fact and is in no way satirical. The same goes for the use of Michael Berg and Cindy Sheehan as identical examples. They are cold, hard truths that the liberal mind can barely comprehend, much less endorse. My concern is that in labeling these examples as a form of satire, we are coming dangerously close to discrediting the theory and the theorist, thus playing right into the liberals’ hands. Their arguments are comprised largely of the assertion that Coulter doesn’t believe a fraction of what she puts forth and isn’t serious about her theories. We can’t lend any support — whether intentional or otherwise — to the idea that she is nothing more than a bombthrower who merely wants to sell books. Although she is, in fact, a brilliant satirist, the example of the Jersey girls media exposure and “enjoyment” does not fit that category. Otherwise, you and I are on the same page.
csjd on June 13, 2006 at 12:37 PM
csjd:
Agreed–on all counts!
I should have clarified in my first post that her overall syle was satirical, but her use of the word “enjoy” was meant to be taken literally.
And don’t anyone think that Ann is not brilliant enough to realize just how effective that one little word would be. Ah the joys of nuance. Ann rules! (Not literally, of course.)
IrishEi on June 13, 2006 at 1:11 PM
Come join me in Flooding O’Reilly’s weekly poll “Do you approve of the personal attacks used in Ann Coulter’s new book?” http://www.billoreilly.com/
Duty, Honor, Country
(in THAT order)
Rowane
Rowane on June 13, 2006 at 1:11 PM
Rowane: I just voted.
birdman on June 13, 2006 at 1:26 PM
Voted, grudgingly. Then sent this email to oreilly@foxnews.com:
“What personal attacks?”
IrishEi on June 13, 2006 at 1:39 PM
Keep in mind the likes of Confederate Yankee, Hugh Hewitt, Ace of Spades, O’Reilly, and others, are simply jealous of Ann. Deep down they know all too well, that AC is right. But they are protecting their “livelihoods” by insuring they can’t be accused of being another Rush Limbaugh… who they view as the Lefty’s punching bag.
They are exploiting Ann’s comments a much as anyone on this matter.
Bob Mileti on June 14, 2006 at 8:47 AM