August 22, 2002

Comments

Ms. Coulter, like her lefty counter-part Fred Gall, or whatever the hell the fellow calls himself, seem to make outrageous statements like this simply to bask in the attention that follows, no matter how negative. Just as she strutted and grinned in the aftermath of her garbage "invade and convert" column shortly after 9/11, she's sure to do the same now. My question is, why give the bastards the satisfaction?

Posted by: Emily at August 23, 2002 08:53 AM

Half of that column was actually pretty good in her remembrance of Barbara Olson. Too bad she screwed it up toward the end. I notice though that she gets a lot more flak than Moore in the media (who claimed his comments were "satire" and basically said "lighten up" to anyone that might be offended at something insensitive he might say less than 24 hours after 3000 people died). A lot more.

Posted by: Henry Hanks at August 23, 2002 10:22 AM

Henry -- At some point, young Hanks, one has to stop obsessing about who gets more flak for farting in the wind, and instead say simply, "stop farting!" Or something like that. Moore got slammed, by many of the commentators I I respect, though he was also given media softballs on his book-promo tour. I'm sure the same is true of Annie; I'd guess she was probably given less rope, but man, if I spent my days trying to scientifically track all that shit my body would swell up with rancid goo. I wouldn't have even mentioned Coulter's latest attempt at outrageousness, basically on Emily's grounds, but Lileks wrote something particularly (and characteristically) punchy. Voila. Now, let's get back to the lemur pictures!

Posted by: Matt Welch at August 23, 2002 11:10 AM

Coulter seems to get away with claiming satire.. at what point after crying "satire" do people get fed up and completely tune you out.

Hopefully, Coulter and Dowd will both find themselves increasingly marginalized for their shrill and unthinking posturings.

Posted by: Suman Palit at August 23, 2002 12:00 PM

Matt

Where was Moore interviewed where he got these "media softballs?" Despite the fact that his book has been a runaway bestseller, he has not been invited to come on any of the cable talk shows. Coulter, on the other hand, is all over the media.

I'm not a Moore apologist. I don't share Moore's Naderite world view (although I thought his TV Nation show was pretty funny -- the bit where they visited North Dakota tourism officials in the middle of winter was extremely funny). But his book sales prove he has a big following, yet the right wing owned media ignore him.

Posted by: PJ at August 23, 2002 12:46 PM

PJ -- I'll defer that question to Mr. Hanks, who, fortunately, has maintained an archive of such material. It's not true that Moore "has not been invited to come on any of the cable talk shows" -- I saw him on at least two, on CNN & one other. There is no conspiracy, organized or no, to keep Moore off the airwaves (I'd wager that truth lies closer to the contrary). Just as there's no conspiracy to keep Mr. Chomsky silenced -- when he came on CNN earlier this summer, it was revealed that the producers had been trying to get the man for months.

Posted by: Matt Welch at August 23, 2002 12:54 PM

Moore appeared on some FoxNews show with Judith Regan-his publisher-interviewing him. How's that for batting practice?

Posted by: Sean Anderson at August 23, 2002 01:42 PM

"Despite the fact that his book has been a runaway bestseller, he has not been invited to come on any of the cable talk shows."

O'Reilly Factor, NewsNight with Aaron Brown (where his ass was kissed), TalkBack Live (where his ass was kissed by the host), The Today Show (where I don't remember reading any challenging questions in the transcript), The Daily Show with Jon Stewart (where his false claim about the bin Laden family flying on Sept. 11 went unchallenged... but it is Comedy Central), ABC's late night news, "Politically Incorrect" many, many times (Maher loves him), including its penultimate show (the last one had Coulter by the way), Hannity & Colmes, the aforementioned Regan show... I'm sure I'm forgetting some.

Posted by: Henry Hanks at August 23, 2002 01:57 PM

Oh yes, the two recent ones, Crossfire and Donahue which was nothing but a lovefest.

Posted by: Henry Hanks at August 23, 2002 01:59 PM

And let's not forget what happened with him on The Today Show in '99.

Posted by: Henry Hanks at August 23, 2002 02:17 PM

At least Mike Moore has the "attack-through-ridicule" thing down. He's funny.

Ann Coulter is some kind of weird performance artist like Andy Kaufman. I don't understand why anyone takes anything she says seriously.

Posted by: John K at August 23, 2002 03:25 PM

Ted Rall is the person that is the lefty counterpart of Ann Coulter.

Posted by: Jeremy at August 23, 2002 03:31 PM

This is the second website where a the comments section of a complaint or criticism of Ann Coulter turned into a bunch of complaints about Michael Moore. (The other one was Patrick Nielsen Hayden's Electrolite: http://nielsenhayden.com/electrolite/.) I don't know about you, but I think that is deeply weird. Is there something in the air? Or maybe it's the full moon. Or maybe... it's fate, kismet, something Out There attempting to use us blogger commenters to bring those two crazy kids together in holy matrimony because, face it, they were obviously _meant_ for each other.

Posted by: Andrea Harris at August 23, 2002 09:03 PM

From my July 25 TechCentralStation column:

http://techcentralstation.com/1051/techwrapper.jsp?PID=1051-250&CID=1051-072502B

"When George Bush started stumbling this summer over dirty bombers, dodgy bookkeeping and diddling with defense bureaucracies, it was as if someone blew a national whistle only the party faithful on both sides could hear. After nine vigorous months of forward-thinking debate about U.S. conduct at home and abroad, many of my favorite new voices lapsed back into shrieking at each other over Bush v. Gore, Coulter v. Moore, and how media coverage of the Harken business compares to Whitewater."

Posted by: Matt Welch at August 23, 2002 10:18 PM

I certainly agree that her comment about McVeigh was reprehensible, along with many other thing's she's said recently. It's been a long time since I've been tempted to pay attention to her.

But what, pray tell, was so bad about "invade their countries, kill their leaders, and convert them"? Doesn't anybody else notice that this was (a) said about our enemies such as bin Laden and those who rejoiced at what he had done, and (b) was a darn sight more gentle than they planned for us?

Posted by: Kirk Parker at August 24, 2002 12:15 AM

Man, my ass hurts BAD. Some dude's gonna pay for this shit. Man. You ever get a real good sandwich, with cheese and all, and heat it up in the microwave? I heard if you put a paper towel around the bread, it stays all good. I'm gonna make a big sandwich pretty soon. If you want half, let me know and I'll make it extra fancy with some lettuce and all. I got some balsamic vinegar too. That's good stuff. I like to put some of that rock salt on top. Goddamn. I've been drinking a lot lately.

Posted by: Ken Layne at August 24, 2002 12:33 AM

tangent off tangent (I arrived late):

Kirk, what was fundaemtnally evil about "convert them to Christianity" was its request that the tens of thousands of Muslim and Jewish soldiers in the United States army participate in something they find fundaneltally offensive or resign from the service. And the hundreds of thousands of atheist and agnostic soldiers participate in something they find wrongheaded. It's also clearly antithetical to the Unites States Constitution.

Posted by: Arthur Stock at August 24, 2002 05:31 AM

What kind of cheese?

Posted by: Jim Treacher at August 24, 2002 09:34 AM

Re: the original post; as I listen to and view the media, EXACTLY how low is the threshhold we're dealing with when we talk about a "cheap shot" or a "small mind?"
The comment was made that the only way to end farting in the wind was to "stop farting." The same thing might be said for making any comments about such wind-eggs.

Posted by: John Avelis Jr. at August 25, 2002 06:11 AM

In an alternate universe, where stupid and hypocritical are funny, Michael Moore could be a laugh riot. I regard someone's tolerance for Moore's stupidity to be an inverse indication of their intelligence, analogous to the 7-11 burrito as a first-level drunk test.

Posted by: David Perron at August 26, 2002 08:53 AM

What does an appreciation of Ms. Coulter's sublime wit indicate? I suppose you go in for Noel Coward's comedies. Hmm?

Posted by: John K. at August 26, 2002 05:21 PM

Ann Coulter is a shrill clown, clamoring for attention. Her book is full of lies and inacurracies. I mean, come on... "liberals hate America"? Does she just laugh making this stuff up? Does she have no respect for the truth? As far as her comment regarding McVeigh, it just demonstrates more obsession with being outrageous no matter what the cost to others. She is amoral, just chasing a buck.

Posted by: Alphonse at August 27, 2002 03:41 PM
Post a comment









Remember personal info?






y participate in something they find fundaneltally offensive or resign from the service. And the hundreds of thousands of atheist and agnostic soldiers participate in something they find wrongheaded. It's also clearly antithetical to the Unites States Constitution.

Posted by: Arthur Stock at August 24, 2002 05:31 AM

What kind of cheese?

Posted by: Jim Treacher at August 24, 2002 09:34 AM

Re: the original post; as I listen to and view the media, EXACTLY how low is the threshhold we're dealing with when we talk about a "cheap shot" or a "small mind?"
The comment was made that the only way to end farting in the wind was to "stop farting." The same thing might be said for making any comments about such wind-eggs.

Posted by: John Avelis Jr. at August 25, 2002 06:11 AM

In an alternate universe, where stupid and hypocritical are funny, Michael Moore could be a laugh riot. I regard someone's tolerance for Moore's stupidity to be an inverse indication of their intelligence, analogous to the 7-11 burrito as a first-level drunk test.

Posted by: David Perron at August 26, 2002 08:53 AM

What does an appreciation of Ms. Coulter's sublime wit indicate? I suppose you go in for Noel Coward's comedies. Hmm?

Posted by: John K. at August 26, 2002 05:21 PM

Ann Coulter is a shrill clown, clamoring for attention. Her book is full of lies and inacurracies. I mean, come on... "liberals hate America"? Does she just laugh making this stuff up? Does she have no respect for the truth? As far as her comment regarding McVeigh, it just demonstrates more obsession with being outrageous no matter what the cost to others. She is amoral, just chasing a buck.

Posted by: Alphonse at August 27, 2002 03:41 PM
Post a comment









Remember personal info?






= true; } else { document.comments_form.bakecookie[1].checked = true; } //--> ; } else { document.comments_form.bakecookie[1].checked = true; } //-->