Thanks, Ann. For giving the third place John Edwards campaign a much needed publicity boost.
For raising campaign money for the Edwards campaign.
For giving cover to the leftosphere who think you represent all conservatives.
As Bryan at Hot Air put it, Ann puts the organizers of CPAC in a bind.
She doesn’t care that she’s putting the CPAC organizers in a bind, since she’s their biggest draw but also their biggest liability. She probably doesn’t care that she’s John Edwards’ spokesmodel. She probably likes the attention. It’s all about Ann. And that’s the problem.
Ann Coulter used to be funny. She’s always been ballsy, and showed you could hit your opponent in the solar plexus without using a bunch of four-letter words. That’s the reason I liked reading her stuff. She was bitingly funny and said what we all knew about liberals, especially those who run screaming from that label.
But somewhere along the way, she became more of a liability than an asset for conservatives. Perhaps it was the documenting of every possibly offensive remark (all pulled out of context, of course) by Media Matters. Or maybe it was when conservatives I respect started declaring that they were done with her. In any event, I’m more angry that Ann’s stupid “joke” (which is what she claims it was) overshadowed CPAC and that she’s given cover to the moonbats who think four-letter words add emphasis for their tired rants.
P.S.–I’ve made it to the big time. Patterico quoted me in his latest post on Ann.
Ann, when you’ve lost sharon, you’ve lost your base. Trust me on this.
That’s completely correct. It’s time for Ann to take a sabbatical.
Cross-posted at Gold-Plated Witch on Wheels.
I don’t know if it’s because of how much contempt I have for the Breck Girl but I’m inclined to be on Ann Coulter’s side this time. I called her a “skinny skank” once. Should I apologize to all uderweight people or just the ones in tight tank-tops?
I hadn’t followed the links, and din’t realize that was you. Is your site meter humming today?
Can someone provide the actual quote of hers that stirred this controversy, and the context in which it was said? When I logged on to AOL and clicked the link to this story this morning, all the news was about how “shocked” people were, not on what she actually said that was so shocking.
PS I have always taken Ann Coulter with a grain of salt, and have written reviews of two of her books that were decidedly mixed (3 stars out of 5)
http://www.theamericanmind.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2007/03/anncoulter-slur.mp3
Enjoy.
Thanks Ann!!!
AnonymousDrivel, a commenter at CQ said this yesterday:
“Good grief. It’s amazing to me that a firebrand commentator, one who made many political comments (only one of which gained any headlines) could suck so much of the oxygen out of the conservative fire and online dextrosphere. Is this where the party is? A politician is required to make a statement to distance him/herself from controversy. We all understand the mechanics of staying popular to gain the largest audience. But c’mon… is this the best the Right can do? Have the other messages drowned out by a single comment due to the internal cannibalism of trying to appear the most righteous and mandating appropriate tone (even if the real point is missed)?”
AnonymousDrivel at March 3, 2007 06:58 PM
While our friends on the left continue to get “passes” on any over the top statements made, (with little or no condemnation), why does the conservative party insist on their self-disciplined crucifiction of rightessness to the point of hypocrisy?
When a simple “Ann Coulter does not speak for me” would suffice, and the last time I checked, Coulter is not running for an office, this PC crap is way over the top, and does not deserve the energy to make this significant.
Only our dear friends on the left can make a big deal out of this, (and there-in would lie their own hypocrisy)i.e. Cheney’s brush with death that recieved so much cudo’s from the extreme left. I’m certain that no one here would wish our VP had met with some worse fate.
[...] Trackback by Common Sense Political Thought — 3/4/2007 @ 9:48 am [...]
We know she is a freak. Not even Tom Tancredo is THAT crazy. We are just laughing that you guys keep inviting her to be a keynote speaker at very important events. This is like us inviting Ward Churchill to speak at a DLC event.
I love you guys. Seriously.
Lisa – I made pretty much that comparison down in the profanity thread ‘although I had to chop it into bits to get through, and some still seem stuck in moderation or spam-filtered).
Ann C. and Tom T. cage match?
Rovin: “While our friends on the left continue to get passes on any over the top statements made, (with little or no condemnation), why does the conservative party insist on their self-disciplined crucifiction of rightessness to the point of hypocrisy?”
I call utter bulls**t on this. (Although I’d guess you believe it, so not intentional utter bullpucky, at least). But hey, perhaps I’m wrong. Go ahead, prove me wrong! Find me a figure on the Left even close to Coulter’s popularity and visibility who’s invited time and time again on tv, with multiple best-selling books, and repeat engagements at, among other things, CPAC (she was there in ’06, but was entirely noncontroversial, so this was entirely unexpected – oh, wait, no, that was when she let loose with that “raghead” comment) and who has time and time again ‘jokes’ about how she wishs Timothy McVeigh had blown up the NY Times building, or that someone would poison a Supreme Court Justice, or how liberals needed to “realize that they can be killed” and even how Al Gore’s a “fag” and on and on and on and on with no apparent consequences except greater and greater fame, and continued invites.
No, Ward Churchill doesn’t count – nobody knew who he was before, and everybody slammed his remarks as soon as he opened his mouth. No, some anonymous morons sitting in their basements and ‘joking’, in (rapidly shut-down) HuffPo comments, about how they wish Cheney had been blown up don’t count, unless they’re getting invited to DLC events. No, Amanda (whose pinnacle of political prominence was being hired to work with the Edwards campaign, and we know how that went) has never said anything along the lines of how the most effective way to talk to a conservative is with a baseball bat, or that we should kill Christian fundamentalists’ leaders and convert them to atheism. No, no, and no.
So – what’ve you got?
that should be “joked” and wishes” and so on, but you get the idea.
Of course Ann Coulter represents the core of the Republican Party, the hard-line conservatives. Admit it, Sharon: you wouldn’t have cared that Ann Coulter called John Edwards a “toggof” at CPAC if everyone has reacted just like the conservatives in the audience did, and just like the Republican candidates for President did: a roar of laughter, and failure to criticize.
But, Florence King (the only conservative lesbian-feminist I know of) made a much better dig at Ann Coulter last year: Watch Ann Go Whoosh!
Everyone knew the kind of thing Ann Coulter was likely to say. As Sharon points out, she’s been saying it since forever: those witty things that make Sharon laugh so hard about killing liberals, poisoning Supreme Court Justices, or blowing up the NY Times building. Knowing the kind of thing Ann Coulter was likely to say, this core conservative conference invited her along to say it.
The good thing about Ann Coulter is she uses the Left’s favorite tactics – personal attacks, name calling – and it drives them nuts! The bad thing about Ann Coulter is that she uses the Left’s favorite tactics, and sometimes causes us to cringe in the process, since we’re supposed to be “above” that sort of thing (it’s the old “Two wrongs don’t make a Right” principle).
What Coulter does that is seemingly unique is she treats the Left with the same sort of disdain, even contempt, that they normally use against us. If you’re a conservative, you’re used to being called vile names (Nazi, racist, bigot, etc.) and being told that Bush is evil, a “war monger” and that he and Cheney are only in Iraq to make obscene profits and so forth. In other words, the Left is rarely content to simply debate policy and ideas, but they usually feel the need to attack people’s motives as well. And that’s exactly what Coulter does right back to them. And, even though she sometimes goes too far, it is nonetheless refreshing to see someone willing to hit back hard and not take any crap from the
enemyopposition.Two words: Michael Moore
Excellent Dan. Have you read any of what David Neiwert over at Orincus has written on this? He has a very interesting theory:
The right has been feasting at Coulter’s Diner for several years now and just loving the shit sandwiches she serves up regularly. They may cough and choke a little, but they all settle back and let her be the face of the movement, because it serves them well. After all, Coulter can trot out the latest bullshit, take all the lightning hits because that’s what she does, and it just promotes her image in the media.
The “edgy” hate talk that she has been pushing for some time now especially appeals to the frat-boy level of sophistication that is her intended audience, and this latest iteration is all about justifying the new bigotry. Coulter’s underlying logic is simple: Bigots are just people with different ideas, not hateful misanthropes whose beliefs are innately poisonous.
Expect to hear a lot of iterations of this. Already you can see it having an effect on the campus level, where right-wing acolytes of the Coulter School of Pseudo Fascism have been holding “Find the Illegal Immigrant” games or “South of the Border” parties, and mock MLK Day parties, and the like. Bigotry, with this crowd, is “edgy.”
…..
The endless accusations of ugliness and “unhinged” behavior on the left are actually part of the right’s general projection strategy, of which Coulter, Limbaugh, and Malkin are the chief heralds. These accusations are not only flung in the face of reality, their very purpose is to obscure and distort it — and to justify the right’s own behavior.
After all, since liberals are so clearly unhinged — as Howard Kurtz will happily parrot for you — it’s only natural that they get their faces slapped a little in return, right?
Pretty soon, of course, we’ll be hearing all about left-wingers’ supposed desire to do away with, and inflict violence upon, conservatives — that is, after all, an important subtext of Coulter’s latest controversial jibe. That should be the warning sign that they’re justifying their own future actions. With Coulter, no doubt, leading the charge.
There is an interesting little dance they are doing with their most shrill advocates: Crazy person trots out, calls someone a faggot or says someone needs to kill (insert liberal here). Then tepid expressions of disapproval are said and penned. Crazy person’s books are hyped, they are invited to speak at more events, and people say with a wink “glad there is still someone who tells it like it is/tells the truth (that gays are, well, faggots; that all Muslims should be killed; that some supreme court justices should be poisoned; etc).
And Eric proves my point with this:
And that’s exactly what Coulter does right back to them. And, even though she sometimes goes too far, it is nonetheless refreshing to see someone willing to hit back hard and not take any crap from the enemy opposition.
Thank you, Eric.
Ah so! Obviously a joke, just not a very good one. The “Rehab” comment seemed to be aimed at a certain famous actor who apparently had to take “sensitivity training” to salvage his career after calling another actor a fag. What this has to do with Edwards, however, is somewhat of a mystery. At best it sounds as stupid as the “Joke” Kerry made about the troops last fall.
And look, folks are still making apologies for her. As they will after CPAC ’08, no doubt (although hopefully I’m wrong ’bout that – maybe so).
And the difference between normal, if rough, overgeneralized, or even wrong left/right back-and-forth and something like:
…..
I just wish the 9/11 terrorists had another plane to crash into the WSJ building, and we need to kill [somebody from a conservative family who was very bad] so conservatives know they can be killed, because otherwise they’ll just ruin the country, and the only way to talk to a conservative these days is with a baseball bat, and conservatives always accuse us of repressing their speech, so let’s repress them, who needs the First Amendment, and somebody needs to put rat poison in Scalia’s canolis – well, I dunno.
If Moore’s said stuff like that, and much more on top of it, I hope you’ll tell me, so I don’t go around being mistaken. If not, do you want to reconsider #11?
“What this has to do with Edwards, however, is somewhat of a mystery.
You really don’t know? Well, my guess – and I hope no one minds if I repost part of my comment from the profanity thread:
a) On the most basic level, it’s playground namecalling – he’s a faggot! The CPAC attendees, including the aforementioned Republican presidential candidates, got to laugh and clap at a Democratic presidential candidate being called a faggot. Cheer. Jeer. Hate.
b) It tosses out some red-meat homophobia for the culture-war base. Now, the candidates, I’m sure, don’t share this attitudes. We’ve learned that beltway Republicans have no problems with gay people (commendable, in my eyes), even as they don’t hesitate to cater to such prejudices for political gain. That’s part of what’s happening here. Imagine if she’d been talking about Obama, and bemoaned the fact that ‘you have to go into rehab if you use the word ‘n*****”?’ She knows she couldn’t get away with that – we’ve come that far – but if it was not-so-many years ago, do you think she would hesitate? Hate. Hate.
c) It reinforces the idea that Democrats are effeminate. Of course Coulter knows that Edwards isn’t gay, and so do the cheering throngs. Part of what’s being said here is that he (and other Democrats) is a girly-girl. Weak. Eww. Hate! Hate! Hate!
d) As Dave Neiwert points out at Orcinus, there’s another target as well:
Sure, back in the ’90s there were some times when PC-ness genuinely went overboard. But I hope we can agree that the original impulse was a good one – that walking around spewing hurtful bigotry wasn’t acceptable behavior. Coulter’s message here is quite different: it’s all about the ‘right’ to openly, loudly, Hate! Hate! Hate!
Dan S wrote:
It reinforces the idea that Democrats are effeminate. Of course Coulter knows that Edwards isn’t gay, and so do the cheering throngs. Part of what’s being said here is that he (and other Democrats) is a girly-girl. Weak. Eww. Hate! Hate! Hate!
McGehee, in a comment on Protein Wisdom, suggested that Miss Coulter would have conveyed the same message yet avoided much of this criticism if she had just called Mr Edwards a “metrosexual.”
Nothing like listening to a multi millionaire ambulance trial lawyer talk about “two americas” with a straight face.lol
You could take the above paragraph, and simply substitute “Left” and “Mike Moore” for “Right” and “Coulter”, and it would sound just as accurate. In fact, it would read like this:
The Left has been feasting at Moore’s Diner for several years now and just loving the shit sandwiches he serves up regularly. They may cough and choke a little, but they all settle back and let him be the face of the movement, because it serves them well. After all, Moore can trot out the latest bullshit, take all the lightning hits because that’s what he does, and it just promotes his image in the media.
The comments here prove my point: Ann Coulter’s remarks have given cover the the tarring and feathering liberals love best. Except you are going a bit overboard. There are any number of conservatives who haven’t liked Ann in years (if ever). I liked much of what she said when she could make the moonbats crazy, because I knew that talking about flying planes into the NYT building or go after someone with a baseball bat was overheated rhetoric. Amusingly, the same people who excused the excess of lefty bloggers or hateful commenters hold all conservatives responsible for the remarks of Ann Coulter. Thanks for proving my point yet again.
I think the thing that drives the Left nuts about Coulter is she dares to attack their motives, not just their positions. Left Wingers are understandably outraged, as in “How DARE she steal our tactics!!!”
I think the thing that drives the Left nuts about Coulter is she dares to attack their motives, not just their positions. Left Wingers are understandably outraged, as in “How DARE she steal our tactics!!!â€
Not a very clever attempt to obfuscate. This is not about “The Leftâ„¢ being hit back hard with their own tactics”, this is about a party which is so prone to fainting spells and the vapors when it hears a liberal curse being accountable for its own very highly regarded, vile, and vulgar nutjobs.
Way to loyally continue defending the indefensible, Eric. You are a real trooper. Guess you can never let The Leftâ„¢ see you sweat.
Moore has said a boatload of vicious things, most notably openly cheering for the terrorists in Iraq to win. The whole point of his movies is to attack people’s motives, to make people hate Republicans in general and the Bush Administration in particular. What both he and Coulter have in common (besides being immensely popular with their respective fan bases) is that they see the other side as “The Enemy” and do everything in their power to demonize them as much as possible.
Lisa – thanks! : ) Neiwert’s very neat. I was actually just thinking that, re: projection. Jesurgislac – very true about how everybody knew what to expect.
Dana: “ if she had just called Mr Edwards a “metrosexual.â€?” Indeed – but that would have only covered that point, not a, b, or d.
Sharon: yes, there are conservatives who dislike Coulter now. Good for them. But like I said on the other thread, it wasn’t Edwards or Gore or Soros or Moore who invited her to CPAC (again), nor did they – however much money they have – buy almost 50,000 copies of Godless the first week it was out. And “, because I knew that talking about flying planes into the NYT building or go after someone with a baseball bat was overheated rhetoric.” – Sharon, a) do you know how that sounds? and b) what do you think is the effect of a quite popular figure openly going on and on and on about how one’s political opponents should be beaten/killed/poisoned?
Anyway: your post, I notice, is largely pragmatic (Ann, stop it, you’re messing it up for us!) rather than values-based (Ann, that’s disgusting, how can you keep on saying these things!?). Now, this might by just a matter of rhetorical approach, and I’m not demanding any sort of statement beyond what your conscience demands; it’s just interesting . . . [more later, have to make black bean soup . . .]
Moore has said a boatload of vicious things, most notably openly cheering for the terrorists in Iraq to win. The whole point of his movies is to attack people’s motives, to make people hate Republicans in general and the Bush Administration in particular. What both he and Coulter have in common (besides being immensely popular with their respective fan bases) is that they see the other side as “The Enemy†and do everything in their power to demonize them as much as possible.
Moore has never called for the death of anyone, or the genocide of any race, ethnicity, or religion. Nor has he called anyone a faggot or encouraged the poisoning of a Supreme Court justice.
Oh, and when was the last time Michael Moore was a keynote speaker at a major Democratic Party event?
(crickets chirping)
chirp chirp…….you people crack me up!
One skinny lady makes an “untasteful” joke about if you called some one a faggot you get sent to rehab, and you make it like Monica’s wackin’ Bill off in the WH. Get a grip people.
Your Clinton/Obama ticket is in place.
If you’re gonna use Coulter as your whipping lady, have at it. It just a waste of real debate on either side. We can all list the diatribes from both sides, but who cares?
Next batter please…….
Rovin:
That’s politics.
Throw us a bone on this, man. Usually, you guys are whipping our asses with our “unfortunate misstatements”. Let us have our fucking moment, OKAY!?!?!?
Thanks.
Meekness never won an election.
The first President Bush got upset about some of the bully-boys at BATF being called “Jack-Booted Thugs” and he dissed the NRA. Brilliant! The phase was first used (properly) by a Democrat. BATF had some bad apples and thugs in its midst and many were at the highest rank. The satirical “Beavis and Butthead Do America” said it all. Note than when John McGaw of BATF went to a top job at the newly-formed Department of Homeland Security, his first priorities were to gold plate his office. This is the bureaucratic mind at work.
The first Bush lacked the political brains of his vice president but he was a inherently decent man. He just wimped out at times.
A wise man once lamented that conservatives tend to not recover their wounded.
Ann Coulter is one of the shock troops of the movement and she can do some wild things. Someone has to lead the charge and raise Hell. We are in a war for survivial of more than a party, more than a nation, but for our culture.
The enemy is ruthless and believes us to be weak of spirit. We need more Reagans, Goldwaters, and Coulters.
There is a mindset that would concentrate on building organization and ignoring (or papering over) issues. This is a GOP malady and it seems to be aimed at winning generic victories while abandoning any vestige of principles.
n.b. – It did not work last November.
Hitler, Mussolini and Pol Pot were no shrinking violets either Art. Being an outspoken asshole is not always the better part of valor.
“One skinny lady [who's the author of multiple best-selling books, etc.,] makes an “untasteful” joke [at a major conservative movement conference, with the VP, front-running GOP presidential candidates, Senators, etc., having been invited again after the "raghead" fuss in '06] about if you called some one [Dem. presidential candidate Edwards] a faggot you get sent to rehab . . .
“We can all list the diatribes from both sides
Hey, go ahead – list some diatribes from the liberal side – we can compare and contrast . . .
Eric: “ The whole point of his movies is to attack people’s motives, to make people hate Republicans in general and the Bush Administration in particular.
This isn’t really true. See Roger and Me, The Big One,Bowling for Columbine, or The Awful Truth. I never got the impression (this may be my version of Sharon’s statement) that he was trying to make people hate Republicans – just powerful politicians and corporations who were taking advantage of the little guys, the average Americans. Yes, F9/11 is of course extremely critical of the Bush administration, but who isn’t? That said, his work’s been going really downhill since 2001, becoming crude, confused, and even conspiratorial – the NY Times’ review of “Bowling for Columbine,” which referred to “slippery logic, tendentious grandstanding and outright demagoguery” is depressingly accurate. “Dude, Where’s My Country” was just a waste, and I almost (uselessly) demanded my money back after seeing F9/11, although it did have a moving and pretty effective half-hour short film buried in it. We can see from history that politicians often act from the basest of motives, but a lot of that movie was just poorly- or unsupported trash, where’s he just flailing about. The charitable explanation is that he’s been trying to address subjects above his pay grade, so to speak . . .
But even his most reprehensible, shaky, and over-the-top attempts at insinuation – which were against Bush and members of the Administration, the kind of powerful people who always face such claims (compare, for example, the more crazed of the accusations against the Clintons) – don’t measure up to cracks about beating random liberals with baseball bats. Seriously.
Lisa: Oh, and when was the last time Michael Moore was a keynote speaker at a major Democratic Party event?
Actually, when was the last time Moore was anywhere? I don’t pay enough attention to that sort of thing, but unless I’ve been missing appearances (quite possible), it seems like he’s mostly vanished . . .
Dana,
I definitely agree that we need more Reagans and Goldwaters. However…
Like Sharon said, I used to think Ann was funny. But this can’t possibly be considered a sane statement by her. I don’t think it is a necessary part of a dignified campaign (and I think that’s what we want–dignity). She is really disappointing me. If she hasn’t apologized, I think she should. Since she has developed less and less ‘discretion’ in recent days, perhaps apology would help her retain some of her ‘valor’.
It will take a change of course for me to respect Ann Coulter as I used to.
Lisa wrote:
Let you? Like we can stop you?
Miss Coulter’s value had dropped to simply being a tweaking point against the left on occasion long before this unfortunate episode.
60s Goldwater or 80s-90s Goldwater? I’d agree in the second instance . . .
“The first Bush lacked the political brains of his vice president”
I missed that the first time. Unfortunately, this time I was drinking hot tea . . .
“ We are in a war for survivial of more than a party, more than a nation, but for our culture.”
In which too many people are getting the idea that the ruthless enemy is their fellow citizen . . .
I’m happy to see that people on the right are criticizing Coulter. But bitter partypooping grouch that I am, I can’t help pointing out that these same folks, by their own admissions, were fine with her for years, until relatively recently. Cause the thing is, she hasn’t really changed. As Digby put it in his post Normalizing Crazy:
Sharon’s annoyed at Ann in part “For giving cover to the leftosphere who think you represent all conservatives, but if you follow the links – well, Echidne of the Snakes should be more widely known in the leftpsphere – a minor Greek goddess who writes about liberalism, feminism, embroidery, gardening, and her dog; what’s not to like? – but if you follow the giving cover link to TPMCafe, it’s not that simple; they argue their case and carefully specify who they’re talking about:
It’s not like Coulter suddenly jumped out of the crowd and ran ranting onto the stage, to shocked disapproval and angry boos before security dragged her off . . .
“ She . . . said what we all knew about liberals”
Remember, she hasn’t really changed. If you reject her now, it might be good to consider some of the things she said that you “all knew about liberals” – after all, some of the things we liberals all know about conservatives, well . . .
Oh c’mon! In 2004 Moore was almost as popular among Democrats as their own candidate, John Kerry! He was even invited by no less a figure than ex president Jimmy Carter to share his private suite during the 2004 Democrat Party convention. Moore was, for all practical purposes, THE voice of the Democrats that year, and his movie was the unofficial campaign theme, and the highest selling political movie of all time. Dan is correct that he’s not been as prominent lately, but that’s mainly because he hasn’t had any books or movies since F-911 whereas Coulter continues to crank out books about once a year.
Funny you should bring that up, since another famous left wing commentator did just that about Clarence Thomas. I don’t remember the exact words, but it was something like – I hope his wife feeds him lots of fried eggs and butter so he has a heart attack while he’s young. Nice, eh?
The reason people were “fine for years” with what Coulter said is that most people saw her as a counterpoint to the constant anti-conservative drumbeat. It’s not like liberals haven’t been using hateful invectives for years against conservatives and conservative ideas.
“since another famous left wing commentator did just that about Clarence Thomas.”
Dan S. googles around . . . ah-ha!
Dr. Julianne Malveaux, in 1994.
Eww. Whatever one thinks of Justice Thomas, publically wishing him an early death (in a rather odd gloatingly passive-aggressive way, too) is just way out of line. No question about that. For real for real.
And apparently she does show up in all sorts of places, but I have to say, I can’t even recall ever hearing her name – have other folks here? Huh, wait – turns out (keeps searching) that I’ve been reading her columns in The Progressive, without ever really noting the byline. Jeez, how could I have been imbibing this sort of angry filth without realizing?
Hmm. Well . .. I guess it’s because that’s not actually what she’s been writing. Again, that was a pretty disgusting comment (which I hope was very strongly denounced at the time) and while it is repeated by others again and again (still googling) as an example of the hateful and unhinged left, she doesn’t appear to have ever said anything else like it in all the years since. (At least (caveat) not that I’ve been able to find so far – she did warmly praise a book by Joe Lieberman, but I’ll give her a pass for that
). Not that it shouldn’t be brought up, especially in a historical context, and I don’t want to blithely dismiss this disturbing and reprehensible comment from over a decade ago, but . . .
Well, here’s her Progressive columns from the last year:
* Food insecurity ignored in the State of the Union
* Health care, access, key to curbing breast cancer in black women
* Tax Day benefits feed the rich, starve the poor
Feel free to peruse ‘em and judge for yourself. Now, you certainly don’t have to agree with her views, but consider both the content of her columns and how these ideas are expressed. How would they compare to imaginary columns on the same subject being written by a hypothetical leftwing Coulter or Rush or Savage or etc.? (Imagine an alternate Malveaux who kept on spewing hateful remarks after she burst out with “eggs and butter” all those years ago . . . )
Does it seem like I’m using a double standard here? It is easy to lose sight of anything like objectivity . . .
Wait, wait, hang on – apparently 11 years after that “eggs and buuter” remark Malveaux had an interview with Sean Hannity and said Bush was evil. Trying to find a transcript . . .
Ok, so: in one corner, Ann Coulter – one of a stable of mass-exposure invective-spewing right-wing media figures – who, well, start here. In the other, Julianne Malveaux – not my idea of a household name, but she does indeed get some exposure for what appear to be rather dull and earnest writings on economics, poverty and race, with two exceptions:
* 1994: (geez, that really was disgusting. No excuses.)
* 2005: says Bush is evil.
No word yet if she is routinely invited to speak at major liberal convenvtions and such.
Well, for whatever it’s worth, several years ago I wrote a review of her book Treason and posted it on Amazon.com. A few months ago I posted a copy of it here. If you want to read it, just click on my name in the right hand column under “Authors”. I think it was a pretty fair and evenhanded commentary, crediting her for making valid points and clever insights, but also criticizing her for making sweeping generalizations and writing in a style that was “Preaching to the choir” and that was unlikely to persuade anyone except those who already agreed with her.
Eric when you put down your club and sit down in your cave to write, you are not half bad; Impressive, even. Your review of Gore’s book was good, though I disagree with some major points.
Speaking of Amazon reviews, if you want to read some funny stuff, read the snarky reviews of David Hasslehoff’s albums.
Alfredo
This ia little biased I think but well written all the same with some great facts!
[...] Thanks, Ann. For giving the third place John Edwards campaign a much needed publicity boost.For raising campaign money for the Edwards campaign.For giving cover to the leftosphere who think you represent all conservatives.As Bryan at Hot Air put it, Ann puts the organizers of CPAC in a bind.She doesn’t care that she’s putting the CPAC organizers in a bind, since she’s their biggest draw but also their biggest liability. She probably doesn’t care that she’s John Edwards’ spokesmodel. She probably likes the attention. It’s all about Ann. And that’s the problem.Ann Coulter used to be funny. She’s always been ballsy, and showed you could hit your opponent in the solar plexus without using a bunch of four-letter words. That’s the reason I liked reading her stuff. She was bitingly funny and said what we all knew about liberals, especially those who run screaming from that label.But somewhere along the way, she became more of a liability than an asset for conservatives. Perhaps it was the documenting of every possibly offensive remark (all pulled out of context, of course) by Media Matters. Or maybe it was when conservatives I respect started declaring that they were done with her. In any event, I’m more angry that Ann’s stupid “joke” (which is what she claims it was) overshadowed CPAC and that she’s given cover to the moonbats who think four-letter words add emphasis for their tired rants.P.S.–I’ve made it to the big time. Patterico quoted me in his latest post on Ann.Ann, when you’ve lost sharon, you’ve lost your base. Trust me on this.That’s completely correct. It’s time for Ann to take a sabbatical.Cross-posted at Common Sense Political Thought. [...]