Video: The Coulter-Lauer fight this morning
posted at 10:55 am on January 7, 2009 by Ed Morrissey
Share on Facebook | regular view
Ann Coulter returned to the Today show to talk about her new book, but only after Matt Lauer insisted on trying to blame Coulter for the controversy arising from Today’s cancellation of Coulter earlier in the week. She got her slot on this morning’s show after Drudge red-sirened a report from sources at NBC that Coulter had been banned for life, which NBC eventually denied and had to prove false by bringing Coulter back as soon as possible. Coulter rips NBC and Lauer for blaming her for the controversy:
Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy
It actually never lets up, and it actually gets even more delicious when Lauer challenges Coulter on the lessons of the election. Lauer asks Coulter if she didn’t get the sense that people want to focus on the issues rather than what divides us — as if the issues and the potential solutions aren’t what divide us. Coulter rips the media in return, noting that Obama rarely got challenged on issues, instead getting softball questions on his feelings while “Sarah Palin had to memorize the last seven kings of Swaziland”. Obama certainly never had to explain the Bush Doctrine on national television.
Coulter’s new book, Guilty: Liberal “Victims” and Their Assault on America, is now out in bookstores and on Amazon. I just got a copy yesterday, and I’ll be perusing it — and maybe we’ll see if Ann Coulter would like to talk more about the book than NBC’s vacillation on featuring her on a TEMS show soon.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
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
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next »
Ann beat that whiny Euro-weenie like a speedbag. He truly is repulsive. One of many reasons NBC is unwatchable and unwatched, at my place.
james23 on January 7, 2009 at 1:42 PM
I have yet to learn from the Coulter critics what is so “outrageous” about her. She asserts her judgments and backs them up with researched facts. She exposes the hypocrisy of the Left. She won’t let Lefty talking points override her own turn to talk. She does not allow the liberal talking heads to put her on the defensive.
Why did Lauer and Smith only focus on one chapter of her book, the one about the deleterious effects of single motherhood on society? Is this the only chapter that their research team felt worthy of a red-meat interview? Did these clown read any other chapters or even this one?
You go, Ann. I am in your corner.
onlineanalyst on January 7, 2009 at 1:42 PM
Absolutely, that is why I don’t go to the Beleiver/Non-believer threads or the Huckabee Would have Won threads. Now if Ann said she was speaking for anyone other than herself I might have a problem because women (you and I) and especially old women (me) tend to back off aggressive people of our own gender. But I think she speaks the truth like I would never be able to do.
Cindy Munford on January 7, 2009 at 1:44 PM
$15.09 at CostCo
I got 2 pages in before the toddler needed attention – can’t wait to dive in tonight!
Doppleganker on January 7, 2009 at 1:44 PM
Blaming anyone other than Bush is absurd. His lack of leadership of the party and his disconnection with the people all but guaranteed a Democratic victory.
Wade on January 7, 2009 at 1:46 PM
In Virginia you can vote in any primary but just one. Unless they changed it since I moved.
Cindy Munford on January 7, 2009 at 1:47 PM
So, after listening stuart smalley, what got so many people to vote for him.
Johan Klaus on January 7, 2009 at 1:49 PM
The total double standard on display here is astounding. Coulter rocks.
therightwinger on January 7, 2009 at 1:54 PM
Johan Klaus on January 7, 2009 at 1:49 PM
The first or eighth time? ;)
dish on January 7, 2009 at 1:55 PM
2 minutes in, and it’s agonizing.
Don’t care though. I can’t stand Ann. She never talks issues. Whenever she’s asked about something a Republican is doing wrong, she refuses to condemn the Republican, and just starts listing things that Democrats have done wrong.
She epitomizes the “left vs. right” debate that the politicians try to keep us locked into, rather than the “right vs. wrong” that they are distracting us from.
Ludwig on January 7, 2009 at 1:56 PM
Good Job Ann
That was like the libtard smackdown. We all know who took that belt home.
lexa on January 7, 2009 at 1:57 PM
Behind the flamboyant rhetoric and sarcasm, Ann builds upon valid and proven conservative principles to undermine and ridicule the emptiness of the liberal perspective. The more books she sells, the more people who are exposed to good solid conservative views. If you actually read her books, she explains clearly the point she is trying to make. Liberals quote her conclusions independently of the explanation and justification, thus painting her words in their own twisted context. She must be the most misquoted and ‘taken out of context’ writer of all time.
If Reagan is the Eisenhower, then Coulter is the Patton. Limbaugh and Hannity are Bradleys and McCarthurs. Coulter is the lethal sword to be wielded when required, and a warrior is necessary. Today’s conservatives/republicans do not have many warriors on the ground.
jerseyman on January 7, 2009 at 1:57 PM
All in the delivery. Ann is an expert at marketing herself. Her market value is derived by her self promotion with sarcasm (lefties say outrageous) delivery of her material. She is a master of self promotion. Reminds me of C. Marcellus Clay in his day.
Wade on January 7, 2009 at 1:58 PM
Coulter’s good at what she does, but let’s get real about what she’s all about. She’s a self-promoter and doesn’t really hide that fact. Her books are marginally interesting and often fairly amusing, but she’s not saying anything particularly original or important. She’s pretty derivative, and sorry to offend some of you, but she writes to the lowest common denominator conservative. She’s an entertainer IMHO and pretty lightweight. There are so many more interesting and serious conservative writers out there who are way more critical to conservative thought.
dakine on January 7, 2009 at 2:00 PM
Wow, you sound like a mccain man. I guess you will be rooting for him when he helps reid push amnesty through the congress.
peacenprosperity on January 7, 2009 at 2:00 PM
Ann is such a smart, bright, talented woman…who is poison for conservatives. She comes off as such a b^tchy, angry soul that it just completes the wrongly made assertion that all conservatives are such as her: pissed off at the world.
CapitalistPig on January 7, 2009 at 2:00 PM
I have to disagree with you. Ann has soundly criticized Republicans (Hagel, McCain, Stevens, et.al. come to mind) when needed. And the reason her seemingly long list of Democrats wrongdoing appaears to be more lengthy, it’s because it is more lengthy (and she backs it up with facts).
D2Boston on January 7, 2009 at 2:02 PM
To add to my point: lok at Rush’s interviews. He all and out says it: Conservatives should be happy and he displays his joy at life in interviews…
CapitalistPig on January 7, 2009 at 2:02 PM
Seems to me on that interview she was asked what IF republicans did something rather than actual deeds.
Wade on January 7, 2009 at 2:03 PM
Right there you identify what you are. If you had ever watched her you would know that that statement is as far from the truth as you can get. She hammers republicans constantly.
Man, I hate liars.
peacenprosperity on January 7, 2009 at 2:03 PM
“Blaming anyone other than Bush is absurd. His lack of leadership of the party and his disconnection with the people all but guaranteed a Democratic victory.”
I kind of thought the majority of our party was disconnected with the people. Blaming JUST President Bush is absurd.
Matt Lauer is visibly angry in this clip. It was humorous to watch and a pleasure to see. It may be the only TODAY segment I watch this year. We’ll have to wait and see.
Deeanne on January 7, 2009 at 2:05 PM
And you sound like a clueless idiot.
wise_man on January 7, 2009 at 2:05 PM
I didn’t see any lack of respect from Coulter in that interview. Lauer kept saying that she says outrageous things but never gave an example. Maybe you lack the ability to listen critically and you believe every leftie hack. So, to win you over someone would have to first get Harry Smith and Matt Lauer to approve them since their baseless opinion seems to have more effect on you than what goes on in front of your eyes.
snaggletoothie on January 7, 2009 at 2:07 PM
Ann was great,.. Matt had NOTHING!!! Not so much as ONE clip to prove Barry could take a hard knocks interview from the MSM!How sad is that!!
christene on January 7, 2009 at 2:08 PM
The irony of Lauer appealing to the need to speak about the “real issues” after spending half the interview talking about using Obama’s middle name was just another proof that nobody drives liberals nuts like our Ann Coulter.
DaMav on January 7, 2009 at 2:09 PM
That was fun. :)
surrounded on January 7, 2009 at 2:10 PM
So, you are a spineless mccain-style appeaser. I bet you get a tingle up your leg when lindsey grahm comes on the tv.
peacenprosperity on January 7, 2009 at 2:16 PM
You missed the point completely , the same media buffoons that’s been smearing Bush for years ask Ann if anyone should really criticize Obama because the people now want “bipartisanship”.
the_nile on January 7, 2009 at 2:18 PM
Maybe you’d rather she use Rush’s nickname for him ->The Bamster.
Blackhawk45 on January 7, 2009 at 2:18 PM
get bent, a*hole.
wise_man on January 7, 2009 at 2:19 PM
Over time I’ve learned that one of the major gaps that exists between two opposing conservatives is priorities.
Ann’s priorities are nuts and bolts politics, very agressive, facts on the ground, information infantry.
Others – their priorities are “hearts and minds” These two ilk can coexist, one need not be thrown out for the other.
LadinPlaid on January 7, 2009 at 2:23 PM
It’s simple terryann…Coulter demagogues Obama’s name because she’s a demagogue. It’s what she does.
Peace, you’re a tool my man.
dakine on January 7, 2009 at 2:24 PM
dakine but she writes to the lowest common denominator conservative
just call me trailor trash sheesh
smells like an elite to me
lexa on January 7, 2009 at 2:27 PM
Another job well done by Coulter. I bought the book yesterday and it doesn’t disappoint. These weenies who try to verbally spar with Coulter should admit defeat. She’s a force to be reckoned with.
UnEasyRider on January 7, 2009 at 2:32 PM
Was Matt Lauer trying to nuance passages from Coulter’s book? Why hasn’t Ann Couter written the book on, Democrats a story of Nuance :)
Dr Evil on January 7, 2009 at 2:34 PM
Ann is just the best. I think that Lauer was scared to have to interview her – and he probably won’t want to have to interview her again, as he looked like such a disingenuous, clueless moron.
Ann did make one small mistake, though. BHO certainly will be able to continue to vote “Present”. There will probably be more bills that slide into law without the new Precedent’s signature than ever before in history.
progressoverpeace on January 7, 2009 at 2:36 PM
I’ve always enjoyed Ann Coulter even though it tasks a persons mind when trying to follow her thoughts. I cannot count the number of times I’ve been forced to do research to see what she is/was discussing.
Much like listening to Rush, or Dennis Miller, you really have to follow the discussion and be current on politics to understand their points. Without both you soon find yourself in dire need of buying a clue.
It is certain that people who complain about these fine people are clueless. Perhaps they blame these republicans for their own short comings when they should place the blame on their inadequate pubic skool edumikation and lack of preparation. :oP
DannoJyd on January 7, 2009 at 2:40 PM
Her shtick is intriguing – playing the “victim” card against the very institutions that pride themselves on being on the side of the “victims”. It’s both uncomfortable to watch, and hysterical kabuki theater.
By the end, Lauers looked like an overwhipped cur. If they don’t cut off her mic, Coulter cannot be shouted down.
sulla on January 7, 2009 at 2:45 PM
Really? Just how will that work?
DannoJyd on January 7, 2009 at 2:45 PM
This is my point as well. She’s appears so angry and so unhappy with everything because Obama won. Actually she’s been unhappy all along, but the point is – she consistantly appears so negative.
People tend to shut out the negative voices and that kind of stormy toniness, unless they are just as or more.
She’s not breaking any new ground. She is only really preaching to that hate Obama/we want-him-to-fail-crowd. That Right Sided prototype of the Bush hater, like Micheal Moore. Their type is always using comparisons to show that it’s just not fair, they believe the other side is always getting away with murder.
It’s doubtful she is converting anyone at this stage of the game.
AprilOrit on January 7, 2009 at 2:46 PM
She speaks so much Truth and won’t be shamed into being seen as “nice” and being talked into saying Democrats ‘may have a point but..” moment that this Yahoo doesn’t even want to give her one 30 second sound bite to speak her mind. He’s constantly talking over her even when she says the schtick about Palin that Ed points out. What retards running NBC.
Sultry Beauty on January 7, 2009 at 2:47 PM
Like this.
Snowed In on January 7, 2009 at 2:51 PM
Sounds like an oxymoron to me.
Johan Klaus on January 7, 2009 at 2:52 PM
damn … Matty just got some free education
joey24007 on January 7, 2009 at 2:54 PM
All Smith and Lauer are are name calling snipes. There whole arguement depends on getting the last name calling in. “I know you are but what am I we have to go to break”
oakpack on January 7, 2009 at 2:55 PM
Guilty
on sale and bought today…..
erm no pun intended.
sven10077 on January 7, 2009 at 2:59 PM
So what, in particular, does Ann say that you do not like?
Johan Klaus on January 7, 2009 at 2:59 PM
I’m LMAO at the very thought of this happening. IMHO, there is no way that Obama will be allowed to proceed unblemished in that manner by those in the MSM. That would make him a laughingstock due to his past under-performance in the Senate, and it would give Rush great material for the next 4 years.
I do hope I’m wrong though.
DannoJyd on January 7, 2009 at 3:01 PM
wise_man, I admire your loyalty to Sen. McCain. I am sure he appreciates it.
Cindy Munford on January 7, 2009 at 3:01 PM
Snowed In already supplied the correct answer, but here’s the actual text from the Constitution, Article 1, Section 7:
progressoverpeace on January 7, 2009 at 3:03 PM
My loyalties are not to mccain, but the truth.
wise_man on January 7, 2009 at 3:04 PM
Ann’s books usually become best sellers. She is definitely influencing, and educating someone.
DannoJyd on January 7, 2009 at 3:07 PM
as approved by Juan Queeg inc. Mi Amigo!
sven10077 on January 7, 2009 at 3:07 PM
The MSM will describe BHO’s non-signing of bills as “cool” and “calm” and “a new way to operate the Presidency”. Just wait and see. Anyone who describes it as “voting present” will be …. “a racist”.
progressoverpeace on January 7, 2009 at 3:08 PM
Anne’s awesome, I’m amazed at how well she keeps her composure and friendly attitude while dealing poignantly with this impudent interviewer.
I wish she talked more about Obama’s affiliations which the liberal media completely ignored or covered up, nonetheless she did a great job given the limited time.
Funny how the liberals talk about ‘bringing the country together’ after viciously demonizing Bush, McCain and eviscerating Palin.
thinkagain on January 7, 2009 at 3:12 PM
It’s funny how Ann Coulter gets pulled apart for being “derisive” when Rush Limbaugh, a ma I saw on television (on his short run TV program in the 90s) claim Rodney King got what was coming to him is considered the voice of the right. Dennis Prager just wrote a two part series of of articles claiming that he’s “hurt” by being rejected by women for sex so ALL women should simply admit they don’t like sex and lay down and take it (and some of you people agreed! What’s more unseemly than telling the world you can’t turn on women) and some of the commenters here claimed that White people saying Negro to me shouldn’t be offensive.
I mean, really? It’s Ann Coulter making the right look bad?
Rob Taylor on January 7, 2009 at 3:14 PM
*smirk*
right4life on January 7, 2009 at 3:16 PM
I’m certain that you will be proven right in a few cases, but the press continues to suffer from their coddling B. Hussein Obama in the election. They are now hard pressed to change that image, and with all of the promises made by our new Messiah he will be hard pressed to actually do something.
Besides, the only group currently worrying about charges of racism is the Democrat Party.
DannoJyd on January 7, 2009 at 3:17 PM
For starters – I think the middle name thing is so done you can stick a fork in it. No one is interested in hearing it anymore.
The only reason she is saying it is to create Muslim panic to those who are just too dumb to know better.
She used the not fair argument by living in the past and mentioning Dewey. If Dewey’s middle name had been Hitler blah, blah, blah it may have been an issue or it would have definately been an issue – thus end result – Barack Obama should not have been allowed to be President because of his name – taking us back around to the Muslim panic.
That it’s not fair thing – again that’s a big excuse used all the time by The Left.
She also said Drudge has never had to retract a story – meaning Matt Drudge is always truthful. I think that has been proven wrong – right here on HA.
AprilOrit on January 7, 2009 at 3:19 PM
Rob Taylor or is that Rod Taylor as in Twilight Zone, what the heck are you talking about?
Cindy Munford on January 7, 2009 at 3:20 PM
April, how in the world is she trying to use “muslim panic” he is the president elect for craps sake. He was the one who didn’t want his middle name used during the campaign.
Cindy Munford on January 7, 2009 at 3:23 PM
Well would you look at that, the one trick pony never disappoints.
wise_man on January 7, 2009 at 3:25 PM
That is 9:45 I’ll never have back. Can either make an intelligent statement of thought?
doginblack on January 7, 2009 at 3:25 PM
I think you’re mischaracterizing your opponent’s argument. You might be offended by the use of the word but it is not my responsibility to worry and fret about every one of your precious little feelings. A grown up can deal with their own feelings without demanding that all of creation obey his whims in order to preserve his inner peace.
snaggletoothie on January 7, 2009 at 3:29 PM
Look, arguing this is like doing who’s on first.
Like I said, it’s so done you can stick a fork in it.
I made a point shared by many. She has/had certain motives for using his name now and more so before the election.
AprilOrit on January 7, 2009 at 3:31 PM
The point Cindy is that Ann Coulter is less abrasive than Conservative talking heads routinely given a pass, and in fact less abrasive than many commenters here. As a Bi-racial person I was disgusted by Chip Salzman disseminating that Barack the Magical Negro song and many people on the rightosphere defended him. I don’t go around calling those people names and saying they make me look bad. Which they do.
Dennis Prager’s marriage colums were not just stupid (and I’ve been with my wife 19 years on the 22nd so I should know better than him about marriage) but it was an unseemly combination of effeminacy and misogyny. Yet the rightosphere is full of people saying “Oh yeah, you’re right Dennis) instead of telling him a man crying over not being able to get laid is unmanly. And no one is saying he is making us look bad. Which he is.
Ann Coulter may shock people, but in terms of making us look bad she’s no where near our biggest problem. Here art Hot Air there a re people commenting on her looks (as if Prager and Limbaugh are so handsome) and generally giving her the lefty treatment and it seems to me that makes us look worse than anything she’s blurted out on a television interview.
Rob Taylor on January 7, 2009 at 3:37 PM
Yes, I’ve given this a lot of thought and I am not so optimistic about the press ever turning on the new Precedent. Their problem is that they went so in the tank to hide all of BHO’s problems, and just outright lied to the public about the idiot messiah, that they cannot reveal the truth without revealing their coup on America. The MSM have gotten themselves wedged between an idiot messiah and an angry mob with pitchforks (if they ever came clean about how they manipulated the public to put this retard in the Oval Office).
One simple example is the clearly illegal campaign contribution fraud that BHO perpetrated. This was a fraud that was hundreds of times larger than the slush funds of Watergate. Add to that the abuses and illegal actions of ACORN and the Ohio government and we have surpassed the Watergate break-in by 5 orders of magnitude. But, if the MSM ever revealed this, they would have to explain why they lied so much during the campaign.
No … unfortunately, the MSM is all-in with Precedent BHO, IMO, and they will have to defend him to the very end. It all comes down to a question of whether any non-MSM questions will ever be allowed to be asked of the retard – though I am certainly pessimistic about that.
I see very, very, very dark days ahead.
progressoverpeace on January 7, 2009 at 3:38 PM
Er. No But it is hypocritical for people here to claim that Ann Coulter makes them look bad but douches like you don’t. You use the term because you like to offend people, and do so on the Internet because you lack balls. Ann Coulter is offensive in making larger points, but at least she has a larger point to make.
Yours is that I should simply vote Democrat and leave you and the other “conservatives” to Kosify on the right-o-sphere. Calling me a Negro is an attempt to at least irritate me and make me feel unwelcome. For the rest of the people here it makes it look like they find that sort of juvenile rudeness acceptable. Which I assume they do.
But who is making the right look worse then? You guys can’t seriously claim it’s Coulter.
Rob Taylor on January 7, 2009 at 3:48 PM
You know who’s a demagogue?
B. Hussein Obama. He’s the very first person to bring up his name. On Tavis Smiley. Muslim outreach, blah blah blah.
misterpeasea on January 7, 2009 at 3:51 PM
I’ve never called you a ‘negro.’ Learn to read, dude.
Dealing with your feelings by getting angry at me is not really going to do you any good. I am not your problem.
snaggletoothie on January 7, 2009 at 3:55 PM
I agree with you, but again it’s only the Far Right bomb throwers and smear merchants who have kosified, like Coulter, Prager etc.
They have become the Democrats or what many of the posters here have be known to critizse – about the Democrats behavior.
They just cannot see that they are acting the same.
I do not find any of it acceptable and I have voiced my opinion more than once.
They are destroying the GOP, but most do not care. They see themselves more as Far Right Conservatives and the GOP is merely a vessel for them to use.
AprilOrit on January 7, 2009 at 3:56 PM
If a president doesn’t sign or veto a bill, it becomes law without his signature after a certain number of days. (I forget how many.)
The only time this doesn’t happen is near the end of a session of congress. If congress is not in session at the time the above clock expires, then the bill dies. The advantage to this trick is that a vetoed bill can be overriden in the next congress. A dead bill is dead forever, and congress has to start from scratch to pass another one.
MarkTheGreat on January 7, 2009 at 3:57 PM
Thanks for clearing that up. If you are a conservative, especially a conservative of color, you are going to have to develop a thicker skin. I am sure that you know that the Magic Negro song was a parody of an article written by a columnist for the LAT who questioned Mr. Obama’s “blackness” and that the columnist himself is black. I’ve been married 33 years, all I care about is keeping that intact, I didn’t and won’t read stupid comments that generalize about what has to be unique. I am okay with folks not liking Ann’s style but she is like any other talking head, she is just that and not an elected spokesperson for the party or conservatives in general. Do you think the Dems try to get Bill Maher to shut up? Just don’t listen. We have to keep speech free so we can evaluate people. And I don’t mean right or wrong, there are plenty of people I agree with on 99% of the issues but they get on my nerves, I don’t want them to shut up.
Cindy Munford on January 7, 2009 at 3:59 PM
Cindy Munford- I know it’s history but I don’t like being called a Negro. Would you tell Michelle Malkin to develop a thicker skin if people called her Oriental.
Look, I didn’t call for censorship, I just said it’s hypocritical for people here to bash Coulter for making them look bad. I’ve not commented anywhere about that song, which offends me. People in comments here and elsewhere have said that they should be able to call a Black person Negro and that the person shouldn’t get offended. That makes the right look bad.
And I shouldn’t have to “grow a thicker skin” to be on the right, I should expect a bit of courtesy.
Rob Taylor on January 7, 2009 at 4:04 PM
How about colored instead of negro?
omnipotent on January 7, 2009 at 4:07 PM
When something is your opinion, it helps to label it as such.
When you present your opinion as being proven fact, then it invites misinterpretations.
MarkTheGreat on January 7, 2009 at 4:07 PM
I’ve reposted this previous Ann Coulter post from a prior thread. She has a tough job, but it is a legitimate role within the movement. Slicing and dicing up hypocrisy on the left (and right) is not always a pretty sight, and she does it without blinking and with terrible fury and rightousness. Why? This is who she is. She gets paid to do what she is. In this regards, she is fortunate.
Sapwolf on January 7, 2009 at 4:08 PM
I agree. Courtesy is sometimes in short supply on some of these sites, unfortunately.
When I get overloaded on the name-calling, I go to sites where the hosts participate in the threads more (which tends to correlate with a more polite discourse) — neoneocon is one of my favorites, but even LGF has less name-calling.
Y-not on January 7, 2009 at 4:10 PM
Actually, you bring up a very important point, here. The word “oriental” needs to be brought back, because the new substitute, “Asian” is fuzzy and inaccurate. Pakistanis and Indians are Asians, but they are not Orientals. It is impossible these days to describe an Oriental without muddying the discussion by inadvertently pulling in all sorts of Asians who have nothing to do with the intended point. This is what political correctness does … intentionally. It is sheer idiocy and totally disingenuous.
progressoverpeace on January 7, 2009 at 4:11 PM
omnipotent-Not big on it. The NAACP came into being at a time when it was either colored, Negro or the N word.
But why can’t you show me the respect to say Bi-racial or Black? I’ll answer for you: You’re trying to offend me. Unlike Coulter though you’re only doing it because it’s funny to you to post anonymous insults on the internet.
So again, who is making the right look bad?
Rob Taylor on January 7, 2009 at 4:12 PM
Thanks Cindy.
You see Blackwell on Monday’s debate?
He da man! My SVDP pals like him too.
Sapwolf on January 7, 2009 at 4:12 PM
Ann Coulter is a strange combination of Phyllis Schlafly, H. L. Mencken, Joe McCarthy, and Bo Derek.
She drives the left spitting-stuttering-stupid-crazy because she drives her point home with a brilliant combination of humor, invective, and facts. Ann’s first book, “Crimes and Misdemeanors,” was a dry and prosaic exposition of the legal case for Clinton’s impeachment. It was a serious book with a legalistic scholarly tone. It was read by some and quickly forgotten.
The rip roaring Ann Coulter that some of us have come to love and some of us to loath first emerged in her second book, “Slander.” That Ann Coulter was laugh out loud funny and used relentless humor and sarcasm to make her case. She also had copious footnotes and a scholarly respect for the research of others. She didn’t go from being a legal scholar to a clown. She just added Menckenesque invective into the scholarship. And it was wildly successful! It was a page turner. Other conservatives have written about media bias, but none of them made us laugh out loud at it. And none of them made Katie Couric red in the face about it!
She got better and funnier and more effective with each subsequent book. Ann knows that there are plenty of admirable serious conservative scholars writing well reasoned and even-tempered tomes debunking leftist lies. But few people outside of the conservative intelligentsia read their books. Ann reads them; she uses their research. But unless their work is brought to the larger public, they will have no impact on changing the popular national discourse. That’s where Ann comes in. The best way to defeat the left is by humorously and relentlessly exposing the stupidity and impracticality of their ideas until they are forced to abandon them out of embarrassment. She speaks the truth with humor and invective. Reagan did this and so did Thatcher. Reagan mocked “welfare queens” in order to make the concept of welfare politically embarrassing. It worked. Thatcher hammered away at the stupidity and incompetence of socialism until the old socialist Labour Party was no more and the new Labour Party of Blair and Brown emerged as little more than Thatcherism-lite.
In “Treason,” Ann was able to resurrect the reputation of an old Cold Warrior by showing that there really were Reds under every Washington bureaucratic bed. Serious scholars had written serious books documenting this, but it took Ann’s humor and invective to make this truth break through to the larger public. I’m sure her latest book will also take no prisoners. I’m still waiting to get my copy, but from what I hear she makes an excellent case about the dangers of single parenthood. Conservatives have argued about this for years and have seemingly grown silent on the issue from lack of being heard, which is what often happens – we concede the discussion because no one seems to be listening to us. Ann never admits defeat when she believes the truth is on her side. How much do you want to bet that Ann’s book will once again make the issue of single parenthood front and center in our national discourse?
I think many of Ann’s conservative critics are ankle biters. Sure, she’s a self-promoter with a healthy ego. So what? She’s also a fearless woman of conviction. She’s not what I would call a “team player,” which is why she would never last long on an editorial board. She has been with Human Events for all these years simply because they’re smart enough to “let Ann be Ann.” She’s their star player, and they know it.
So, yes, Ann’s tone is confrontational (and wickedly funny). Ann tried the dry scholarly approach. It doesn’t reach the masses. It doesn’t break through to the popular culture. Ann’s approach does. She refuses to cede the national conversation. That’s why she will proudly sally forth to do battle on Bill Maher’s show or anywhere else. Do you know what kind of guts it takes to sit in a crowd of rabid booing leftists and not flinch? This woman is fearless, and for that alone I admire her.
ramrocks on January 7, 2009 at 4:15 PM
I know you weren’t calling for censorship and I get your point about the double standard for Ann. But I am also telling you that anyone is free to call me anything they like because I don’t give them the power to offend me. Since I don’t know anything about these comments you reference I won’t defend them but I think if you look at just this thread all sorts of names are called and most are better left unsaid, even by people I admire. I can’t speak for Michelle but given past experience I think she would probably laugh at anyone calling her Oriental, afterall her co-worker at Fox wanted to spit on her for her views on illegal aliens.
Cindy Munford on January 7, 2009 at 4:15 PM
The NAACP should change their name then if it offends you?
BTW, I would (will) call you Rob, not colored, negro or ‘other’.
We’re all mutts at heart (except the newly found pink iguana on Galapagos).
omnipotent on January 7, 2009 at 4:16 PM
Y-not-I love neo-neocon
progressoverpeace-In an academic sense maybe, but shouldn’t we respect the wishes of a person or group of people as to what they wish to be called in non-scientific discussions? If we’re talking about evolution or Anthropology I would agree, but we’re talking about blog comments and radio talk shows.
What ever happened to being respectful.
Rob Taylor on January 7, 2009 at 4:16 PM
I did not, is it available on the web? I will watch it at home if it is.
Cindy Munford on January 7, 2009 at 4:16 PM
Get over it. Nobody calls me Scots-Dutch-Irish-German-American, and I manage to survive.
misterpeasea on January 7, 2009 at 4:18 PM
Everyone cares about different things. Have you met Baldilocks? I am not going to walk on egg shells so as not to hurt your feelings but at the same time anything I say is not meant to personally hurt you. I don’t know you and I don’t even try to hurt people I don’t click with. Manners are an excellent idea but the change with the wind and time.
Cindy Munford on January 7, 2009 at 4:19 PM
I dind’t say the NAACP offends me. I said the picked their name at a different time in this country. For the first time ever I think I’ve seen a literal Strawman in a comment thread.
If you’re saying that you can say Negro because a old Black guys do then you’d be allowed to call people the N word because Chris Rock does. It’s a silly theory.
If I asked you to call me Rob as opposed to Bobby you calling me bobby would be disrespectful. It’s the same with Negro, it offends people and we’ve asked for a different term to be used. You’re being purposefully disrespectful by not respecting our wishes.
So who is making us look worse?
Rob Taylor on January 7, 2009 at 4:21 PM
Does the adjective “colored” offend you or not?
omnipotent on January 7, 2009 at 4:23 PM
Criticizing my word choice is disrespectful.
I demand you respect me.
misterpeasea on January 7, 2009 at 4:25 PM
Cindy-Is it walking on eggshells to not call me Negro? Let’s be honest most of you don’t use the word at all.
Misterpeasea-Are you saying I should just allow people to say what ever they want to me? That if I don’t dig being called something should suck it up?
What your saying is that we have no obligation to live in a polite society anymore. What you’re arguing is that you disrespecting me shouldn’t matter. This attitude is why I’m not a liberal. I respect others I demand that they respect me. What’s wrong with that?
Rob Taylor on January 7, 2009 at 4:27 PM
This guy Lauer is the poster boy of political correct speak.
I kind of feel sorry for him that he lost his manhood at some point along the way.
He could not concede one point to Ann.
Lauer is the face of the main stream media and he is what makes us weak.
FireBlogger on January 7, 2009 at 4:28 PM
You aren’t respecting me. Why should I respect you?
And why should you base your self-respect on what anonymous strangers say? I can promise you, there’s worse being said.
misterpeasea on January 7, 2009 at 4:29 PM
omnipotent-When some White guy is throwing out as a way to irritate me yes. When my 80year-old Grandmother said it, not really. But then again she never referred to me as colored. She had manners.
Rob Taylor on January 7, 2009 at 4:29 PM
Rob, how does anyone on a blog know what color you are or what name you want to be called by? I just don’t see people on this site being disrespectful to anyone except each other when they are arguing and that is only until the next subject where they are in total agreement. In general I don’t believe I use terms meant to offend but I am not going to worry about it, PC is stupid and it is dumbing down the ability to communicate.
Cindy Munford on January 7, 2009 at 4:30 PM
Great analysis ramrocks and the highlighted portion is what made me a fan. I read her first book for the subject matter and her subsequent pieces because I find her writing style entertaining and informative.
thomasaur on January 7, 2009 at 4:30 PM
misterpeasea-Wow. A)Self-respect is what makes me demand respect from others and B)I probably wouldn’t respect you if I met you in real life, but I’ve been as polite as the situation demands.
Rob Taylor on January 7, 2009 at 4:32 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next »