guest post by Taylor Marsh
When I saw the latest insanity in The New Republic, "A Defense of Ann Coulter" by Elspeth Reeve, I knew it was time to let fly my latest piece. Reeve’s article is a beauty. That is if you like pimping for the Republicans’ prime propagandist.
Yes, yes, Coulter has said some terrible things. But I don’t think it’s the terrible things that really bother liberals. Coulter makes us cringe not when she lies, but when she says things we wish weren’t true. …
If you’re really looking for the truth about Ann Coulter, I suggest you read on.
On the YAF site selling the Ann Coulter poster, this is the description: The Beauty of Conservatism, Ann Coulter – best-selling author, witty columnist, and compelling speaker – proves it is possible to be beautiful, intelligent, and conservative. It’s important to note a couple of things. First, they describe her columns as "witty." Secondly, that "beautiful" comes before either "intelligent" or "conservative." Witty and beautiful are her top commodities in the YAF "marketplace". But it’s the whole package conservatives are taking to the bank, no matter how wrong their right-wing diva can be.
"I think [Whitewater]’s going to prevent the First Lady from running for Senate."— Ann Coulter on Rivera Live 3/12/99
YAF has been around for a long time, as many of you know. Their major issues include: combating "racial preferences," also known as affirmative action; feminism, communism and Marxism, and "diversity." "Quacks" bother them, fascism not so much.
"My libertarian friends are probably getting a little upset now but I think that’s because they never appreciate the benefits of local fascism."— Ann Coulter on MSNBC, 2/8/97
For the longest time, Phyllis Schlafly, then Dr. Laura, were the poster girls for the conservative right. My brother debated Schlafly back in Missouri during the ERA days. She may make a good case, but she’s nothing to look at, though back then that was no crime. However, in the new age of TV glamour, cool and celebrity, the conservatives were being out distanced by a mile. So what’s a conservative party to do? Find some way to make conservatism cool. It was post Reagan, when Bush 41 just didn’t cut it, with the rise of Bill Clinton, who was as cool a political conglomerate as we’d ever seen. Something had to be done.
"I am emboldened by my looks to say things Republican men wouldn’t."— Ann Coulter in TV Guide 8/97
"Originally, I was the only female with long blonde hair. Now, they all have long blonde hair."— Ann Coulter – CapitolHillBlue.com 6/6/00
Ann Coulter was made in the 1990s, as was her right-wing blonde book-end Laura Ingraham, who recently clucked that journalists should get off of their hotel balconies and report the Iraq war; a war that is the deadliest conflict for journalists since WWII. As for Coulter, even though all of her animosity was directed towards President Bill Clinton and First Lady Hillary, she actually owes her fortunes to Bad boy Bill, and the advent of 24-hour cable, which needed talking heads to ramble on about all things Clinton. Ann was always ready to oblige.
Basically, Ms. Coulter isn’t so much about important issues as she is a political ambulance chaser. She goes to the scene of news to capture the hyperbole and then offers her special brand of huff ‘n puff for the president’s party, which assures her noise gets covered. She’s also willing to say things no one else would dare utter and gets away with it; all because she’s a girl. This picture captures the set up. Little black dress and knee high black boots, with her long blonde locks flowing; all pictured beside the children, yes, always the children. A more apt phrase would be: here comes Ann, hide the children.
Coulter had stated that her "only regret with [Oklahoma City bomber] Timothy McVeigh is he did not go to the New York Times building." – NewsMax
That the leading conservative ringmaster would promote terrorism on a free press institution, no matter how much she disagrees with their stance on issues, shows the desperation of conservatism and the plight of the Republican Party. There’s nothing witty about it. Since Newt Gingrich’s failed Contract on America, which was followed by his disgraced Speaker of the House era, conservatives have slowly and steadily been losing ground on credibility, policy and ethics. However, that hasn’t stopped Chris Matthews and his friend Sean Hannity, both practicing Catholics, from offering post indictment interviews of Tom Delay, the champion of "forced abortions" in the Northern Marianas. But there’s one person who hasn’t suffered any real legal troubles, pocketbook blues or consequences for her vituperativeness. Her name is Ann Coulter.
"High Crimes and Misdemeanors" was published in 1999 and became a New York Times bestseller. The vast right-wing conspiracy, helped along by Regnery Publishing, had been launched anew. The goal: make the first two-term Democratic president since F.D.R. a pariah, while condemning all things progressive to the trash heap. Rush Limbaugh hailed Coulter, as did others. But her first of five books was nothing compared to what came afterwards.
She did not come out of the gate with such ruthless aplomb. As published at the height of the Clinton-Lewinsky scandal in 1998, "High Crimes and Misdemeanors" reflected her background as a lawyer and was fairly scholarly, considering what came after it. But once her lethally blond franchise became part of public consciousness, or at least the lower stem of it that feeds off cable talk, she quickly learned that hyperbole is best sold by the ton.
David Carr calls Coulter’s particular gift "weaponizing words." Washington Monthly chronicled Ann’s early beginnings.
We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity. We weren’t punctilious about locating and punishing only Hitler and his top officers. We carpet-bombed German cities; we killed civilians. That’s war. And this is war. – Ann Coulter, September 13, 2001
President Bush’s crusade campaign had a partner.
And who can forget Coulter’s claim that Katie Couric was "the affable Eva Braun of morning TV."
Ms. Coulter rides it all the way to the bank.
Here’s a chronicle of some of her greatest quote hits.
To a disabled Vietnam vet: "People like you caused us to lose that war."—MSNBC
"We’re now at the point that it’s beyond whether or not this guy is a horny hick. I really think it’s a question of his mental stability. He really could be a lunatic. I think it is a rational question for Americans to ask whether their president is insane."—Equal Time
"I have to say I’m all for public flogging. One type of criminal that a public humiliation might work particularly well with are the juvenile delinquents, a lot of whom consider it a badge of honor to be sent to juvenile detention. And it might not be such a cool thing in the ‘hood to be flogged publicly."—MSNBC 3/22/97
"I think we had enough laws about the turn-of-the-century. We don’t need any more." Asked how far back would she go to repeal laws, she replied, "Well, before the New Deal…[The Emancipation Proclamation] would be a good start."—Politically Incorrect 5/7/97
"Anorexics never have boyfriends. … That’s one way to know you don’t have anorexia, if you have a boyfriend."—Politically Incorrect 7/21/97
"If they have the one innocent person who has ever to be put to death this century out of over 7,000, you probably will get a good movie deal out of it."—MSNBC 7/27/97
"If those kids had been carrying guns they would have gunned down this one [child] gunman. … Don’t pray. Learn to use guns."—Politically Incorrect, 12/18/97
"It’s enough [to be impeached] for the president to be a pervert."—The Case Against Bill Clinton
"If you don’t hate Clinton and the people who labored to keep him in office, you don’t love your country."—George, 7/99
"I think there should be a literacy test and a poll tax for people to vote."—Hannity & Colmes, 8/17/99
The "backbone of the Democratic Party" is a "typical fat, implacable welfare recipient"—syndicated column 10/29/99
"The swing voters—I like to refer to them as the idiot voters because they don’t have set philosophical principles. You’re either a liberal or you’re a conservative if you have an IQ above a toaster. "—Beyond the News, Fox News Channel, 6/4/00
"Let’s say I go out every night, I meet a guy and have sex with him. Good for me. I’m not married."—Rivera Live 6/7/00
"The thing I like about Bush is I think he hates liberals."—Washington Post 8/1/00
"I think [women] should be armed but should not [be allowed to] vote."—Politically Incorrect, 2/26/01
"God gave us the earth. We have dominion over the plants, the animals, the trees. God said, ‘Earth is yours. Take it. Rape it. It’s yours.’"—Hannity & Colmes, 6/20/01
After High Crimes came her string of New York Times bestsellers: Treason, Slander, How to Talk to a Liberal (if you must), Godless: The Church of Liberalism. Every single book was a money maker, with Ann’s special talent for weaponizing words getting more and more violent as she published.
When she was pushing "Treason: Liberal Treachery From the Cold War to the War on Terrorism," (almost 400,000 in sales), it was all about the misunderstood genius and patriotism of Senator Joseph R. McCarthy. In "How to Talk to a Liberal (If You Must)", she let readers in on the playbook: "You must outrage the enemy. If you don’t leave liberals in a sputtering impotent rage, you’re not doing it right." And her sales of 301,000 for what was basically a collection of columns seem to indicate that she has mastered the form.
"Godless," which is already doing gangbuster business according to the folks at Barnes & Noble, suggests that liberalism "is the doctrine that prompts otherwise seemingly sane people to propose teaching children how to masturbate, allowing gays to marry, releasing murderers from prison, and teaching children that they share a common ancestor with the earthworm."
What Coulter does is serve up red meat for the media. BradBlog chronicles Coulter regularly. Max Blumenthal reported that the church Ann claims doesn’t know her. Corporate media could care less about the inconvenient facts. Bring us Coulter’s cash.
Why is she successful? Because she reduces liberals and most progressives to silence, then takes the floor for her own and the fans that flock to her. Few on our side like to go toe to toe rhetorically with the likes of someone who spews this type of venom. One clue as to what she’s really doing came when she suggested putting "rat poisoning in Justice Stevens’ creme brulee," which was followed by her contention it was all a joke. Ah, yes, Ann is so witty. One wonders what would be said of a liberal spewing such hate. We all know the answer.
What is also ignored in all the laughing is that Ann Coulter is the Republican Party. The Grand Old Party of the Past will do anything to get the job done, kill off their critics or candidates they don’t like, as well as silence their enemies. Their tactics inspired The Patriot Project. Today’s GOP is Nixon’s enemies list on steroids.
"These broads are millionaires, lionized on TV and in articles about them, reveling in their status as celebrities and stalked by grief-arazzis. I’ve never seen people enjoying their husbands’ deaths so much." – Ann Coulter
Through the weaponized "grief-arazzis," in Godless, you can hear the ratatattat of Coulter’s rhetorical gun.
The New York Times article calls Coulter one of the "leading political writers of our time." On the web and right-wing radio, her fans adore her.
But her comments about the 9/11 widows sparked some serious push back. Keith Olbermann called her "shameless." Two years after USA Today dropped her, newspapers began dropping her, too.
“Liberals have never liked her, and we’ve always gotten complaints [from them]. But the complaints that mattered the most were from the conservative readers,” who felt that their views were being misrepresented. Cedar Rapids Newspaper Drops Ann Coulter’s Column
The Shreveport (La.) Times is letting their readers decide. Stay tuned.
But Ann needn’t worry, because she’ll always have Human Events, who lists Coulter as their "legal affairs correspondent". In one of her latest columns for Human Events, Ann goes after John Kerry yet again. Unfortunately, she quotes the Detroit News, who truncated Kerry’s quote, then refused to clarify their reporting, even after I had contacted the reporter who admitted there were errors in her piece. So much for trusting the hometown newspaper.
Hugh Hewitt’s new Townhall will also stand by Ann.
However, the Augusta Chronicle just dropped her, but there’s a rub. She was replaced with Michelle Malkin, the woman who thinks internment camps are a good idea. A woman who posted the personal information of three Santa Cruz students on her blog; put New York Times employees at risk; then was hoisted on her own pitard for yet another conservative anti-troop campaign that went flat, because I actually witnessed what she was floating. But at least Ms. Malkin never called the 9/11 widows "grief-arazzis."
The 9/11 widows Coulter defamed, Kristen Breitweiser, Patty Casazza, Monica Gabrielle, Mindy Kleinberg and Lorie Van Auken, responded with feeling and class, something Coulter can never claim.
We did not choose to become widowed on September 11, 2001. The attack, which tore our families apart and destroyed our former lives, caused us to ask some serious questions regarding the systems that our country has in place to protect its citizens. Through our constant research, we came to learn how the protocols were supposed to have worked. Thus, we asked for an independent commission to investigate the loopholes which obviously existed and allowed us to be so utterly vulnerable to terrorists. Our only motivation ever was to make our Nation safer. Could we learn from this tragedy so that it would not be repeated?
We are forced to respond to Ms. Coulter’s accusations to set the record straight because we have been slandered.
Contrary to Ms. Coulter’s statements, there was no joy in watching men that we loved burn alive. There was no happiness in telling our children that their fathers were never coming home again. We adored these men and miss them every day.
It is in their honor and memory, that we will once again refocus the Nation’s attention to the real issues at hand: our lack of security, leadership and progress in the five years since 9/11.
We are continuously reminded that we are still a nation at risk. Therefore, the following is a partial list of areas still desperately in need of attention and public outcry. We should continuously be holding the feet of our elected officials to the fire to fix these shortcomings.
Recently, Tim Grieve of Salon.com reported that Yes! Weekly, a Greensboro, N.C. paper, has also "decided to dump Ann."
Four newspapers does not make a tipping point, especially when you’ve got Sean Hannity propping up (or is that pimping?) your views and books to his millions of listeners; even making her a lead attraction at his "Freedom Concert," which actually is for a very good cause, even if Sean doesn’t actually promote freedom. That said, I’ve had to edit this post several times before it went up because newspapers keep dropping Coulter’s column.
Then recently, when Coulter was charged with plagiarism, it was interesting that the proof was greeted with a collective yawn; but that changed, then the proof mounted, or did it?
Crown Publishing denied it all, with Ann running from the cameras for the first time in her well publicized career.
Coulter’s latest book Godless brings new questions.
Via "The Horse’s Mouth," this headline says it all: Ann Coulter has us right where she wants us — talking about Ann, by Craig Durrett.
But the Coulter plagiarism charges keep coming and supposedly stretch back five years. TPM Muckraker’s Justin Rood went to town on Coulter’s alleged crimes: Coulter a Cribber? Company: No. Expert: Yuh-huh.; Coulter Syndicator Responds, with more here; but it’s Rood’s full list that’s an eye popper. Behold the list, indeed, with more here and here. However, even TPM Muckraker boss, Josh Marshall, finds some of the claims "strained," much to liberal disappointment. I link, you decide.
But drat! How can we get the conservative diva? Who can take her on?
Matt Lauer failed miserably. He wasn’t willing to get down in it with her. The important question to ask is why major networks continue to offer Ann a platform, while ignoring progressive women? Why is conservative hate speech such a draw?
Norah O’Donnell, sitting in for Chris Matthews on "Hardball," blessed the conservative diva with an interview that was straight from Queen for a Day, something you’d expect from Fox News. The right-wing loved it. Now name one liberal or progressive diva who would get this kind of treatment anywhere. Time’s up. She doesn’t exist. But whose fault is that?
Then there was Donny Deutch’s rambunctious rumble with the conservative headliner, which was downright dirty. It was also the antidote for anyone sick of the milktoast media crowd.
But the bottom line for Ann is that she brings viewers to the screen, fans to events, political train wreck watchers to the cash register.
She brings book buyers to bookstores; people who read and pay.
Dollars adding up on the bottom line, time after time after time, as Ann accumulates more and more clout. She’s a one woman GOTV machine.
And in the conservative blogosphere, she is a star. From Newsbusters:
"allanf" says: Truly a case of beauty vs. brains. Let’s call this one "the parrot and the Lady".
American Infidel: "I wonder if Lauer is still crawled up in the fetal position after the a** whoopin he just got from Ann? We’ve finally given liberals a war against fundamentalism, and they don’t want to fight it. They would, except it would put them on the same side as the United States. – Ann Coulter
Sam: I love Ann Coulter. A little brash at times but always witty and thought provoking.
Chris Norman: Why, oh, why, can’t all conservatives handle interviews with the MSM along the lines of Ms. Coulter? Why do they always seem to fall into the liberal reporters’ traps, let them frame the issue, and go on the defensive? Perhaps all conservative/Republican politicians should be forced to go to a media boot camp run by Ms. Coulter.
Truth Missile: when Conservatives tell the truth the MSM (including Google) cries "hate-speech!", when Liberals tell the truth… I mean if they ever told the truth… well, if and when a Liberal ever tells the truth we’ll figure out what the MSM lapdogs call it.
Outside the Beltway had a cascade of complimentary Coulter commenters. Here are just three:
Patrick: I have a strong affection for Ms. Coulter, probably because she is a lot like myself. She speaks her mind and really doesn’t care who gets trampled in the process. I admire her for being able to do so with more wit and sophistication than myself. And she is a smoker from what I hear. My kind of woman!
Tri: I’m a conservative and I’m not against Ms. Coulter’s interview like many suggest we conservatives are. She hit the nail on the head. The left use these women as a mouthpiece because they think anyone that disagrees with them will look insensitive. To hell with their arguments.
Zelsdorf: The libs like to talk about speaking truth to power. That is what Ann does. The power of the media. To match wits with Ann, they need something of a larger caliber than Matt Lauer. James I am beggining to think you an apologist for the left. Why is that? There is nothing but truth in what she said about those particular 9/11 wives. Why is calling the President a liar acceptable speech, but telling the truth about those who oppose him is not.
This particular conservative post speaks for itself. So I’ll gladly throw a toss to one of the few conservatives who actually called Ann out.
While the cash register just keeps on ringing.
Ann Coulter attracts conservatives like flies, if you’ll forgive the analogy, and makes her patrons, corporate media sycophants and wingnut radio hosts happy. It’s the most beautiful big money smear machine in operation today.
However, contrary to what The New Republic prints, Coulter does not make liberals cringe because of her truth telling, because it’s not in evidence, as I’ve shown above. Some liberals want to ignore her; say she doesn’t matter. It’s a mistake. But until our side learns to fight as dirty as Ann Coulter conservatives, we’ll keep seeing W.’s diva on our screens, at the book stores and on the lecture circuit, firing up young conservatives and the Republican faithful. I just wish the likes of The New Republic wouldn’t parrot her propaganda.
But what’s going to happen now that some newspapers are pitching Ann Coulter to the curb? Michelle Malkin will make more money. Maybe Laura Ingraham will finally get her shot. She’s started substituting for Bill O’Reilly so can Ingraham mania be far behind?
It begs the question: why don’t Democratic divas get this kind of coverage? It would be nice to share in the wealth, not to mention the attention. We can weaponize words just as well as Ann, but make more sense doing it, which may be the problem. As for radio, we’ve got Randi Rhodes but few others. That’s why I’ve taken things into my own hands, doing talk radio from my blog every day. Beat ‘em in your own way, I say.
But let’s face it, we’re just not the train wreck the conservative divas deliver every day. That could change, or maybe it’s just not our style; or maybe it’s time we adapt.
Catfight anyone? Or would you prefer mud wrestling? Film at eleven, baby. Because remember, it’s about entertainment.
Sponsors, start your engines.
Related posts:
Spotlight
Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About Firedoglake
Advanced search
Yipes! it’s her! again!
..of course meaning Coulter, not Taylor. Loved the last post. now to read this one.
Was this pic before the train wreck?
FITZ…hurry.
I am overwhelmed at the detailed analysis and numerous links you have provided.
We cannot long endure in a culture of hate. Thanks for helping take down people like this.
I can’t help but anticipate seeing, whenever I see that particular image, a little forked tongue flicking out and testing the air, looking for a tasty rat to swallow whole.
I know people say that Ted Bundy seemed perfectly normal, but he must be the exception that proves the rule.
There is something seriously demented visible behind those eyes.
OT but gotta say it: that photo above makes me think if comedian/actor Denis Leary went transexual, that is what you might get (minus the huge hands and extra-long face). Just sayin’.
Who photoshopped out her fangs in this picture?
you make a good point taylor. the problem w/conservative punditism is the same problem that pop music is currently having and that country music had in the 90’s, which is now leading to its decline:
they’d rather look good than have substance.
putting aside whether annthrax really is good-looking, she’s considered a pin up girl by the right. instead of relying on actual intellects like wm. buckley and cal thomas (yes, he’s actually a thinker, at least compared to john fund, david brooks, et al) they are putting up flash over substance.
and thus they are beginning now to lose the argument, because once their points are examined, their arguements fall apart.
i would rather debate coulter than buckley any day of the week. buckley would hand me my ass on a silver platter and smile while he did it.
coulter would just shout.
How long did this detailed post take to put together?
Any word on the voter fraud charges against Coulter?
She’s just a bitter, evil excuse for a human being.
Coulter? Is she still around? I thought her career finally tanked two months ago.
Ugh. The repuglikan priestess of hate (Eat your heart out Michelle.)
Linky to Rolling Stone article from the bunker of Lieberliar on V-day for Lamont/Real Dems.
http://www.rollingstone.com/po…..ing_away/1
Word is there has been another charge of plagiarism launched against Bush Republican Ann Coulter.
Claims that she has plagiarized verse and chapter from Mien Kampf are currently being vetted.
-GSD
Actually, maybe The New Republic is right. If Ann Coulter ever did tell the truth, the cognitive dissonance would be overwhelming. In fact, huge chasms might open up in the earth’s surface, just before all the matter in the universe collapses in on itself.
Well, it would be rather surprising, anyway. Best not to do such things to all us liberals with our low blood sugar and short attention spans.
Still can’t get past the poster. Do I buy one to scare the kids? “Honey clean your room or I’ll call Ann and Karl.” DCF would love me.
Great post!
I for one offer to mud wrestle Ann. It would be entertaining. Rather like a star trek episode when good-Kirk fights evil-Kirk. Cue music…
I’d take one for the team and hand her her ass, btw.
She sure doesn’t look like that poster now! Today’s Annie has the looks and behavior of a cocaine addict. It’s just a matter of time before she gets pulled over at 3am and the cops find a baggy of white powder in her purse or she become incoherent, maybe wets herself, during a television interview. A “comeuppance”, I might add, I will thoroughly enjoy.
Does the spotlight thingy work, or is it just in “testing?” Cause this post should be spread far and wide — it’s a treasure of quotes and links, and every reporter should have these at her/his fingertips. Oh, and forward to MSNBC manager/editor types; they’ll appreciate the bits about Nora.
Yesterday, Eric Alterman linked to this review at Powell’s of Ann’s new “book”. Good reading (the review, that is).
http://www.powells.com/review/2006_08_10
GSD @
14
I have long said that Coulter sounded better in the original German … traduttore tradittore!
Thanks, egregious, kristinejoy, appreciate it. I believe Spotlight is working, scarecrow. Great idea. As for how long this took, well, a bit of work, let me say.
A little more detail of interest regarding today’s scheduled (as of 6/12 anyway) CIPA hearing in the Libby case that was highlighted by Christy in her earlier post:
1. PDB summaries turned over to Libby to-date:
On 5/17/06 about 55 pages covering 6/7/03-6/14/03 were produced by the government; On June 2nd Libby wrote a letter asking the government for more detailed information about those summaries.
On June 12th, at the status conference before Walton, Libby asserted the need to file a follow-up motion to obtain the further details he requested in his June 2nd letter, and possibly other details following the next batch of PDBs due to be produced the next day. All parties agreed to a June 30 date for the submission of this proposed motion.
On 6/13/06 the second batch of PDB summaries for 10/03-3/04 dates ordered by Walton were produced to Libby by the government; On June 23rd Libby again wrote a letter to Fitzgerald asking for further details about these items.
2. June 28, 2006: Judge Walton grants Libby attorney Cline’s 6/27 unopposed motion for an extension of time to file the new Libby motion to compel discovery of more PDB detail than had been turned over as of June 27th. [Cline still expected to need to file the motion, but had reached agreement with Fitzgerald apparently on at least some of the further detail, and had a vacation upcoming so asked for the extension of time to finish sorting things out.] Walton grants Cline an extension until July 11th to file his next Motion to Compel with regard to the PDB documents.
BUT: NO motion is ever filed by July 11….? That day comes and goes with apparently no new filing. Meaning: apparently Fitzgerald and Cline were able to work out their differences, and Cline was satisfied with whatever arrangement was made to provide further PDB detail from the CIA.
Thus, no scheduled government response by July 31st was necessary, nor any defense reply by August 9th. Instead, on Monday or Tuesday of last week the CIA & Fitzgerald produced a third and final batch of PDB material to Libby, as reported in a court filing last Wednesday 8/9 (not yet online apparently, but reported by the AP). Furthermore, on July 24th, Fitzgerald filed a status report concerning unclassified documents with the court (which has been made available online by DU’s ’stop the bleeding’). That report summarized the agreement about all such documents that he had reached with Libby, apparently resolving the matter to the satisfaction of both sides and the White House.
Therefore the scheduled CIPA hearing before Judge Walton today, 8/16, to resolve classified disputes, may have become unnecessary since the day it was scheduled on June 12. [Except that from the AP’s reporting about the 6/12 status conference it is a little hard to tell the proposed purpose of the 8/16 hearing - whether strictly to deal with the proposed 6/30 (7/11) motion to compel further PDB production, and/or to deal with other matters related specifically to permissible evidence at trial, isn’t crystal clear.]
In short: A successful wrap-up to a masterful job by the Special Counsel of removing the last of the graymail threat surrounding the PDB document discovery and potential claims of executive privilege, in preparation for the trial of one Irving L. “Scooter” Libby??
P.S. A little reminder for everyone of the “mini-bombshell” (as Dan Froomkin put it well 4/27) that is the very last sentence of a major front page story (which has since had a couple of corrections appended, but none concerning this sentence) in the New York Times on April 27, 2006 by Anne Kornblut: “Mr. Novak has testified to the grand jury since Mr. Rove’s last appearance in October 2005.”
we’d also add that crown forum publishing (coulter’s publisher) made the claim that the plagarism allegations against annthrax were not viable because she researches her books so thoroughly, but that has been debunked by media matters and reported on by keith olbermann.
Taylor twice in one day. :)
I’m a pretty good amateur sociologist, but I must admit I am flummoxed over Coulter’s longevity. I thought she jumped the shark years ago, but no, she still mysteriously (to me) goes on.
My reaction would be, normally, “Why even bring her up?” But that approach obviously doesn’t work… so I look forward to the “catfight.”
;)
Coulter is all about marketing and should not be taken seriously.
Brilliant work Taylor! I think Ann Coulter is the ultimate queen bee. I don’t understand how she can say and stand for the things she says without hating every other woman on the planet.
For some reason, the words ’serving wench’ keep coming to mind.
But my alltime favorite has to be,’Satans Chambermaid’.
This is the real reason Coulter attacks the Jersey Widows: http://www.911pressfortruth.com/
Not because of some John Kerry political photo-op.
mui @
13
I love that he calls Joe small (his elfin nails). Bizarre description of the scene — the two supporters yelling at him.
This bit about Ann from DailyKos has made my day several times now. I laugh every time I open the link.
This post is just another example of the reason for her longevity:
IGNORE HER!!!!
The wingnut that squeaks where no one pays attention gets no oil (or $)
windje
GSD EPU’d last thread:
You will all really like it.
Anyone remember which cable show Ashley Banfield was on?? MSNBC or CNN? She got booted a couple of years ago for frowning when she said “bush” once.
I see she is on some court tv thing. Just noting WHO is allowed to say WHAT on the teevee.
Taylor -
This is an amazing piece of painstakingly documented work. Oh yeah, it’s all about the corporate money, baby.
Great synthesis of detail for the record (which will help people to ignore her in future).
ReneND @ 34
She used to be on MSNBC
SOT = either Somewhat Off Topic, or drunken SOT *cough*Bush. Your choice.
Ed*ard Teller @ 203
This all reminds me of an event involving one of my many brothers.
He like the rest of us was putting in his time working at a truck stop for the summer to earn money for college.
At the end of the summer he announced he was going to go to Harvard.
Response: “Oh, I didn’t know you were smart.”
1. Two posts about whatshername at fdl in one week are two too many.
2. I’d much rather see a picture of a real woman – and real person – like Taylor, for instance, at the top of this post.
We have a Republican government that refuses to govern; it has one been one long marketing campaign about how wonderful everything is domestically. And another marketing campaign on the 24 hour terror all the time channel, about “foreign” threats.
We have the Coultergeist, as the spokesperson for the more crude and violent messages of this Republican marketing campaign. She is the voice of what happens to people who dissent.
As long as we have citizens who accept a marketing campaign in lieu of governance, we will have people like Coulter. As long as we accept the right-wing trainwreck of venom instead of debate, we will have more of the same. As long as we allow the media to conflate news and infotainment, we will have no true discourse.
The Lamont Revolution is about to sweep all of that stuff away. Don your safety goggles, it could get a little messy.
Taylor, that is without a doubt the best critique of the Coultergeist that I have seen.
OK, lots of folks in the comments make allusions to it, Olberman keeps mentioning the adam’s apple, even Tweety hinted around at it. And if I met her in a bar and didn’t know who she was I’d definitely peg her as a switcher. So does anybody know for sure? Is Coulter trans or not?
I’ll say what I’ve said in many other places.
1. What bothers me most about Coulter is not what she says. What bothers me the most is that she’s treated by the MSM as someone with a valid political opinion. Her act is bad stand-up, and to treat it as anything beyond camp is an insult.
2. She loves being hated by the left. The best antidote? Simply ignore her, and direct your ire at those who provide her with a forum.
For the best critique of the Ann Coulter style of political attack I have heard listen to this. From NPR:
http://www.npr.org/templates/ sto…storyId=5521113
Not that I care if she’s trans, but the irony of her being the darling of the right wing homophobes would be delicious if she is.
i’d rather slide naked down a banister lined with straight razor blades & fall into a vat of alcohol than have anything to do with this creature
HoJo gets 10mins of Bush/Coulter GOP love: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1I2Qqxuls4U
Sorry Take Two
For the best critique of the Ann Coulter style of political attack I have heard listen to this. From NPR:
http://www.npr.org/templates/s…..Id=5521113
There are several important reasons to suggest impeachment. But, perhaps the most essential of the arguments in favor of this action would be that it would send a vital message to the rest of the teetering and extremely dangerous world, particularly the Middle East, that America has not lost it’s collective mind. It is this reasoning that compels me to opine that it might be in the interest of this planet’s survival to begin impeachment hearings, major-posthaste, upon a Democrat victory this fall. Another thing. If Bush, Cheney, Rove and the rest where focused on impeachment, legacy and all that, they might be to busy to start a world war.
OkieByAccident @ 20
That is a great review of Coulter’s book.
Taylor, I couldn’t check all your links, but this review might be a helpful addition to the post, which is already stunning. Great work. Thanks.
I’m sorry…I stopped reading when I got about halfway through her/him quotes. Honestly, s/he doesn’t deserve our attention. That would be the biggest insult we could possibly give to him/her. S/he’s a joke IMHO…a very bad joke who probably has lots of scripts just like Rush does.
Just a couple of things from an older person who lived the ‘blonde thing’ back in the ’60’s and ’70’s. Everyone had long blonde hair back then….s/he has come up with nothing new. However, back then, the marketing game was ‘blondes have more fun.’ Today, the blondes are stupid, right? Whatever.
When speaking of Schlafly being nothing to look at, though ‘BACK THEN’ that was NO crime…..let’s be serious about this. It has always been a CRIME for a woman NOT to be beautiful and thin. ALWAYS! Don’t think that the young women of today are experiencing something that hasn’t been around for centuries. We have had TV, glamour, and celebrities for a number of decades now….and women have been ridiculed for their looks for centuries. You gotta throw it right back at them and realize that everything is air-brushed.
I’ve fought the ‘beauty machine and propaganda’ all of my life. Don’t let them get to your self-esteem. Stop buying the crappy make-up and designer clothes. Be healthy….better yet be pissed off at the corporate media’s depiction of women…write about that instead of her/him.
Oh, and the kids w/ anne the man….she uses them as body armour. hehehe.
Atrios is right again Lance Mannion opens a can of whoop ass on continued TRN idiocy and the wretchedness which is Ann Coulter
http://atrios.blogspot.com/200…..9988337631
She makes me soooooo HOTTTTTTTTTTTTTT!!!
Oh, man, that picture is great. I wish I had a larger version of it, that went further south, if you know what I mean…
Welcome back, Taylor! I’ve missed you here at FDL.
Coming to DC in September? please.
peace,
jim
I’d rather have a root canal, than be forced on a date with Ann Coulter. Do I hear multiple root canals? She has such an unattractive “mind”.
So what about “killing her with kindness?”
Write as if she’s really a liberal mole. What else could explain the justification for her writing as “trenchant satire,” worthy of Swift?
Swift didn’t really believe his proposal was the answer… So, write as if Ann doesn’t believe what she writes, either, even though she refers to that interpretation as a “fantasy.” What else can she do without blowing her “cover?”
Ignoring her won’t work. Making the Republicans take responsibility for her hasn’t worked yet, because there are others to fill her shoes.
So, what about just doing the Rovian thing, and adopting her as one of our own? But a mole. Decrease her conservative shares value.
Who saw currenttv.com’s cartoon last nite re Ann Coulter?
She’s in bed with her boyfriend, Adolph Hitler.
Her son, Damien comes in.
Her ex-husband, Satan stops by.
The cartoon ends with Satan saying:
“I can’t believe I paid for her sex change operation.”
egregious @ # 38:
Almost 40 years ago, I was going to the University of Washington and working at a sheet metal fab shop under the Fremont Bridge, My best friend at the shop was also going to school. The rest of the workers were blue collar career sheet metal journeymen, etc.
One day at lunch, I was reading a play by LeRoi Jones and my friend was reading Allen Watts’ _The Book_. One of the regulars came up and asked what we were reading. My friend, Harry, said “I’m reading The Book.” The guy joshed him, “c’mon, man, what book?”
Harry showed him the book, and the guy turned to a group of regulars behind him, exclaiming “Hey, you guys, brainy Harry really is reading THE BOOK!”
chi-tom,
(to quote Christy) BWHAHAHAHA!
Is that Gore’s Current TV?
Oklahoma Kiddo 47:
What you said, in bold.
Oh yes, one more thing. WARNING!!! I now this is not safe for small children and has been around a while but in cause you missed it. Here is a classic take down of Ann Coulter and a vicious take on all the wing-nut pinheads who somehow find her sexually attractive.
http://ifuckedanncoulterintheasshard.blogspot.com/
Excellent piece.
And just who would offer to sit up there to be so outrageous as Ann COulter but from our side? And why isn’t that someone there already? or is s/he? or aren’t they?
Pictures of the Creature always remind me of a stray lyric from an old song that I can’t place.
“A rag, a bone and a hank of hair”.
tom — chicago @ 54
Here you go…”A Night with Ann Coulter” http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KmLJDrsaJmk
Hey Jim Preston, good to “see” you too. Thanks, pow wow, you too, neurophius, very generous of you. And I’ll definitely work on getting hated as much as Coulter, so my picture can be put atop such a chronicle of moneymakers! ;-)
SusanD @ 60
”Honeycomb!” Although I think it was ”A hank of hair and a piece of bone.”
I had no idea Keanu Reeves trolled here. Kooky!
Oklahoma Kiddo -
I wonder what percentage of this country has figuratively crawled into a hole of despair, basically dropped out, has lost hope of turning things around, thinking this administration will never be held to account.
Maybe it’s negligible, maybe it’s substantial. If the numbers exist, a solid push for inpeachment could bring them out of the woodwork and energize the effort. Probably no way to quanfity, though. Justathought.
EvilDrPuma- what’s on the menu today?
Madonna showed some time ago that celebrity nowadays is about celebrity. It’s not what you do but that people talk about it, invest themselves in it, in you. Sex is a good start because sex sells and as with Madonna it is not about being good looking, it’s about maintaining a subtext that is sexual.
Shock, of course, is a way of keeping things going. If this year you are the Marilyn material girl for sale, next year wear your underwear on the outside, or throw in some crucifixion type shtick. It all works.
As long as you can get them to talk about you, it doesn’t matter what you say or do. It doesn’t even matter what they say as long as they say it and it’s about you. You will know that your celebrity is done when your latest outrageous escapade doesn’t elicit a yawn. When that happens you’re through but by then no one will notice.
But the bottom line for Ann is that she brings viewers to the screen, fans to events, political train wreck watchers to the cash register.
where is the evidence for this? Her books sell only because Scaife is willing to finance bulk purchases. Her newspaper columns have come at time of unprecedented circulation decline, is it just possible she and other conservative shills were a contributing factor? Cable ratings declined during the whole period of Clinton hating. Is it just possible she isn’t profitable but has been propped up?
Valley Girl @ 66
Who am I, Grandpa Jones? :-P
(Me, I’d be down for a big old helping of chicken alla parmagiana today–but alas, my wallet isn’t.)
‘Politcal ambulance chaser’ That’s it enough of this b____! Thankyou Jane for posting A NEW THREAD in just 45 minutes.
New Thread.
Coulter is all about marketing and should not be taken seriously.
She should be taken very seriously, as should Rush, et al. They succeed precisely because for too long we did ignore them. Savage would still be on MSNBC, except Atrios and others went after him.
Re impeachment,
I hate to go to the Republicans for pointers, but if this was about Bill Clinton, do you really think they would have any problem with talking about impeachment, whether they thought it was likely or not? Do you really think they would have any difficulty about talking about impeachment as well as other things? If anyone said that impeachment was fringe or a distraction, I can already hear the response. What will it take for you? How many 911s or Iraqs until it’s time for you to say he’s got to go? How many more of our cities have to sink beneath the waves or go up in flames before you think you’ve had enough?
Acting as if impeachment is some kind of taboo, not to be talked about in polite company, is yet another case of keeping our powder dry. We must have by now some of the driest powder in the universe. The onus shouldn’t and doesn’t need to be on us. It should be squarely on anyone who still defends Bush after 911, Katrina, and Iraq. If these don’t deserve impeachment, what does?
Dear Taylor,
“Thanks” for posting on such a distasteful subject.
Society would come to a halt as we know it if people stopped plumbing the sewers and pumping the septic tanks. Biological waste removal specialists and Coulter chroniclers play essential roles and I admit I do not have the stomach for either, and sometimes not even enough tolerance to watch some one else do the work. Thank you for a job (necessarily) well done. You are a stronger than I am.
Here in dairy country, when we get a sick un-grained heifer like Ann-crack, we generally need to round up (so to speak) a couple of hollow points and put in a quick call to protein removal before the rest of the herd gets sick too. Sadly, and now in 2006 predictably, among Republicans instead of an aversion to the social sickness that is Ann-crack, there is a pathological desire to infect more of the herd. The modern GOP instinct is to cultivate the sickest and cull the healthiest of political discourse and Ann-crack is the prime example of that phenomena.
Just as disgustingly is the obvious fact that Coulter is much more a symptom than a cause of the bile she represents. Anne-crack reflects the basic appetite of our traditional force-feeding corporately and multi-aligned media culture. NBC, Time, Newsweek, CNN etc. would MUCH rather give readers and viewers the sickness that flows from the GOP hate herd. At the same time, they consciously avoid, water-down or even denigrate the intelligent, socially valuable, and politically astute messages that so many gems of the left, such as Randi Rhodes, have to offer. That dynamic is the real enemy, the belly of the beast if you will.
When the MSM is feeding itself off of an anorexic harlot like Anne-crack, what does that say about the diet they are serving up to us? Oh never mind, rhetorical question and you already answered it in your post.
Thank you Taylor. Keep up the dirty work.
Sláinte,
cl
I wanna be a liberal Ann Coulter.
No- really. I’ve got a pretty acidic tongue according to more than one person who has crossed my path and I do have a burning almost irrational hatred of conservatism. I’d love to Ann Coulter and an audience that Ronald Reagan’s last shit-filled days while he lolled around with this tongue out crying incoherently were pretty much what all conservatives of his ilk deserve. I’d love to tell a national audience that George Bush obviously suffers from some sort of Oedipal complex and is swaggering about on the national stage to win more than motherly affection from Barbara. His father was a rather good statesman and he is the one shtumping George’s obvious love interest.
So how do you do it? How do you gain license to say the outrageous and the offensive and not be called out on it?
Hell, if Ann can put her Auschwitz physique and straggly blond hair to good use, surely my being 6′6″ can be some sort of in, right? I need to figure out how to siphon off my soul, build on being ogrishly tall and full of venom so that I can turn a buck.
Shit- being able to tell conservatives that their patron saint died a justifiably horrible death; that they never left the legacy of Nixon; and that their current focus of worship is about as worthy as a donkey- these would all be things I’d do for free. ;)
Taylor, what a thorough indictement of Ann Coulter! It is so true that she gets away with murder, maybe because people are afraid to speak truth to a pin-up girl. Her alleged beauty has a pornographic tinge, she appears like a stripper before the unveiling.
She does not conduct any thoughtful analysis of issues, she just bites onto any liberal issue and finds something demeaning to say about it and leaves it at that. It is hard to argue with somebody that puts smear above substance, just as Matt Lauer can attest to.
Taylor, I applaud you for getting into the diva cat fight – but be careful and get your rabies shot first.
Jenny from the Blog @ 67
One of the things that always bothers, is how few of the eligible voters actually go to the polls. I don’t know what the stats are these days, but I suspect they are pretty grim. Giving up the franchise is what the right wing counts on for victory.
Coulter is only important in that she articulates the real views of a large part of the GOP. They think what she thinks and if the history of the last century teaches us anything it’s that when your political opponents say they hate you and think you should be killed they really mean it.
Coulter herself is just a hater. If the money was better hating Conservatives, or pandas for that matter,she would hate conservatives or pandas. She would hate something that’s a given.
The best thing would be to make Coulter the face of the GOP. To show that what she says is what they believe. Personally, of course I would prefer to see her in an all out mud wrestling death mass. I’d pay big bucks for that. Who do you think her opponent should be?
Who on the liberal side would be able to get that close without loosing their lunch?
I seldom comment these days, but I think it’s appropriate for me to do so on this thread, even if it’s at the end of it.
Until it is understood that Ann Coulter is but a symptom of a much broader set of causes, we won’t ever see her influence diminish. Look at the state of modern journalism for one of the main causes of the Coulter phenomenon. That profession has virtually abdicated its traditional role, and emphasizes sensationalism, ratings, and the bottom line over doing quality work. So, you get the Matt Lauers and Chris Matthewses and Nora O’Donnells and whoever else seems to be adept at getting a television gig, who tend to be very shallow people to begin with, despite their formal educations. They are intimidated by someone like Coulter who, like it or not, seems to have a lot more brainpower, and greater capacity for rhetorical battling than these mental midgets. Do not forget that Coulter is a trained litigator, and no doubt has a good deal of experience in intellectual combat. And, frankly, litigators are a whole lot tougher as a group than your average broadcast journalist, who tend to tear up when they find out that their makeup has been misapplied.
When you start seeing really incisive journalists demand to appear on these shows to take her on – - even better, a lawyer-turned-journalist, then you’ll see the Coulters and Malkins reduced to pools of waste material. Until then, with the Matt Lauers and such in charge of the proceedings, you’ll just see more of the same.
Speaking as a liberal, I love Ann Coulter. I hope she sticks around for at least another 5 years or so. Why do I lover her? Because she validates everything we say about the GOP. She is the face of the GOP, and is closely tied to Bush, Rove, Mehlman as well as the usual groups of talking head gasbags. She is loony tunes crazy, a raving lunatic. People like Pat Buchanon and William F. Buckly used to represent the various strains of thought in Conservatism, but they have been replaced by Counter, Malkin, Hannity and others. These people don’t have a philosophy, they are shock jocks. Following these people won’t lead you to a balanced world view. They see that and realize they need to get back to reality, and the people who are leading the way in the real world are the Dems. We may have our flaws, but we are on the only path that leads to progress.
The way I percieve it, most Republicans see Coulter from up close, among their tight circle of winger friends, where her words ping around inside their bubble. They eat it up and believe what she is saying, and gradually over time, she and the rest of the right wing have been getting further and further out into lalaland and the world of wackiness. They are so far out there that when a winger steps back and tries to get some perspective from outside their bubble on what is going on, they are shocked by how far they have been wandered off the path. Shocking events like what is happening in Iraq force them to take a look at what is going on. When their bubble finally bursts, the GOP is going to collapse from within.
In the mean while, people that aren’t in their bubble, look on in horror. It drives Independants, Libertarians and non-political people away.
Bottom line, the more insane and vicious her rhetoric gets, the more she discredits the right wing, and the more opportunity we have to define them as loony, incompetant and viciously partisan and crazy. Ann Coulter does our work for us. She validates our position. Ann Coulter jumped the shark when she went after the 9/11 widows, from here on out her words are more damaging to the GOP than they are to Dems.
And as for her being attractive, she is decent looking, except she is kind of creepy when you look closer. I think its her thin lips, which are narrow and cruel. On the plus side they accent her fangs nicely.
I am no fashion model. As a result, typically, appearance is the last thing I’d comment on. At the same time, this begs for a comment.
Ann Coulter is not beautiful. Her soul is shriveled and ugly, and it will continue to deteriorate. If she is what the GOP considers a pin-up, I’m thankful I vote for Democrats.
“This picture captures the set up. Little black dress and knee high black boots, with her long blonde locks flowing;…”
Ann, you really need to lay off that crack pipe.
Coulter needs to be punked. It’s probably doable. Fake radio station, fake blog, whatever, get her on tape, punk her. Let out your inner Ashton Kutcher (if you have one). Because the way to deal with trolls that can’t be ignored is to out-troll them.
I’ve retouched countless photos but I have to say I don’t think I could have done what it took to make Coulter look like that photo.
Lately she’s been looking like a heroin addict.
Honestly Keith Richard looks better than her.
Ann is butt ugly, inside and out. And NO to mud wrestling or cat fights, Taylor. Denigration of women is not entertainment. Let Ann demean herself and her ilk, but leave liberal women out of it.
Taylor,
I think a two pronged attack would be effective.
Take Coulter hyperbole and match it with an Admin. ’softer version’. Run it during campaign season.
Example:
Coulter: I believe in fascism.
Bush, Cheney, Gonzalves: Opining on warantless wiretaps, domestic spying, etc. (Personally, I’d then segue into some Nazi footage).
This will split her from indepenedents that lean conservative.
Second strategy. Ann claims to be a good Christian church going woman.
Ask her to quote Scripture to back some of her claims up, or probe her Scriptural knowledge. I saw a preacher do this to her a few years ago, and the broad DOES NOT know her Bible. He had her squirming! This will split her from evangelicals, who take a dim view of such ignorance.
I came across the following quote today:
Criticism, like rain, should be gentle enough to nourish a man’s growth without destroying his roots. -Frank A. Clark, writer (1911- )
Obviously, the radical rightwingers are just set on destruction everywhere.
No one I know thinks Ann is pretty. I showed her picture to my teenage son and some of his friends who have no idea who she is, and they all agreed she looks like a burned out crack-whore. Their words, unscripted, unbiased. None of them thought she was pretty.
7 Oaktown Girl says:
August 16th, 2006 at 11:57 am *
OT but gotta say it: that photo above makes me think if comedian/actor Denis Leary went transexual, that is what you might get (minus the huge hands and extra-long face). Just sayin’.
========================================
Yes – we transsexuals are so funny! And unattractive – and ever so happy to be used as by you to make a point against someone who would hate us.
Lucky us!
Coulterguist is a piece of trash – there’s really no need to bring us into it to make that point.
Great minds think alike… Shake’s Sis makes similar points (with a feminist focus): http://shakespearessister.blog…..lacks.html
witchywoman says:
August 16th, 2006 at 12:31 pm *
OK, lots of folks in the comments make allusions to it, Olberman keeps mentioning the adam’s apple, even Tweety hinted around at it. And if I met her in a bar and didn’t know who she was I’d definitely peg her as a switcher. So does anybody know for sure? Is Coulter trans or not?
====================================
How very proud you must feel that you can pick us out in a crowd – we’re gratified you go to such trouble to objectify us and our bodies. ‘Cause we all do look alike. Oh – I forgot -Not that it matters. There – I’m covered!
Of course – if a woman with a history of transsexualism has an adams apple – I didn’t – it’s one of the cheapest and easist things they can have taken care of. Any one with her cash who was trans and was ridiculed for it would have that taken care of long ago.
Reeve has Stockholm Syndrome. She’s sympathizing with the type of person who made her life miserable. Unfortunately, writing this crap is not a form of therapy.
The best joke would be to turn her inside out, by publishing a book called:
Witless: The Book Ann Coulter Would Write If She Were A Liberal
This book would be an exact inverse of Ann’s standard tactic, which means it would contain example after example of poorly researched, off the wall bullshit held out as emblematic of the entire conservative movement. It would of course have lots and lots of irrelevant endnotes. It would be swimming in stupid generalizations about conservatives and their evil, stupid, hopelessly deranged policies.
It would be way fun to write, and what would Ann be able to say, really? That’s not how I write? Um, yes, bitch, it is. You’ve mischaracterized the conservatives? Duh, that’s because I was imitating what you do. Your documentation is phony? Riiiiight.
Flys on shit.Exactly. Who wants to lick it? Much less hit it!”Just Say No” maam,or whatever it is.
Can we PLEASE start referring to it as the “right wing New Republic” and quit this charade?