Ann Coulter. (page 2)

purplesofa

L’Affaire Coulter
Goodbye to all that.

By Jonah Goldberg, NRO EditorOctober 3, 2001 2:20 p.m.

ear Readers,

As many of you may have heard, we've dropped Ann Coulter's column from NRO. This has sparked varying amounts of protest, support, and, most of all, curiosity from our readers. We owe you an explanation.

Of course, we would explain our decision to Ann, but the reality is that she's called the shots from the get-go. It was Ann who decided to sever her ties with National Review — not the other way around.

This is what happened.

In the wake of her invade-and-Christianize-them column, Coulter wrote a long, rambling rant of a response to her critics that was barely coherent. She's a smart and funny person, but this was Ann at her worst — emoting rather than thinking, and badly needing editing and some self-censorship, or what is commonly referred to as "judgment."

Running this "piece" would have been an embarrassment to Ann, and to NRO. Rich Lowry pointed this out to her in an e-mail (I was returning from my honeymoon). She wrote back an angry response, defending herself from the charge that she hates Muslims and wants to convert them at gunpoint.

But this was not the point. It was NEVER the point. The problem with Ann's first column was its sloppiness of expression and thought. Ann didn't fail as a person — as all her critics on the Left say — she failed as WRITER, which for us is almost as bad.

Rich wrote her another e-mail, engaging her on this point, and asking her — in more diplomatic terms — to approach the whole controversy not as a PR-hungry, free-swinging pundit on Geraldo, but as a careful writer.

No response.

Instead, she apparently proceeded to run around town bad-mouthing NR and its employees. Then she showed up on TV and, in an attempt to ingratiate herself with fellow martyr Bill Maher, said we were "censoring" her.

By this point, it was clear she wasn't interested in continuing the relationship.

What publication on earth would continue a relationship with a writer who would refuse to discuss her work with her editors? What publication would continue to publish a writer who attacked it on TV? What publication would continue to publish a writer who lied about it — on TV and to a Washington Post reporter?

And, finally, what CONSERVATIVE publication would continue to publish a writer who doesn't even know the meaning of the word "censorship"?

So let me be clear: We did not "fire" Ann for what she wrote, even though it was poorly written and sloppy. We ended the relationship because she behaved with a total lack of professionalism, friendship, and loyalty.

What's Ann's take on all this? Well, she told the Washington Post yesterday that she loves it, because she's gotten lots of great publicity. That pretty much sums Ann up.

On the Sean Hannity show yesterday, however, apparently embarrassed by her admission to the Post, she actually tried to deny that she has sought publicity in this whole matter. Well, then, Ann, why did you complain of being "censored" on national TV? Why did you brag to the Post about all the PR?

Listening to Ann legalistically dodge around trying to explain all this would have made Bill Clinton blush.

Ann also told the Post that we only paid her $5 a month for her work (would that it were so!). Either this is a deliberate lie, or Ann needs to call her accountant because someone's been skimming her checks.

Many readers have asked, why did we run the original column in which Ann declared we should "invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity" — if we didn't like it?

Well, to be honest, it was a mistake. It stemmed from the fact this was a supposedly pre-edited syndicated column, coming in when NRO was operating with one phone line and in general chaos. Our bad.

Now as far as Ann's charges go, I must say it's hard to defend against them, because they either constitute publicity-minded name-calling, like calling us "girly-boys" — or they're so much absurd bombast.

For example:

Politically Incorrect that our "censoring" of her column was tantamount to "repealing the First Amendment." Apparently, in Ann's mind, she constitutes the thin blonde line between freedom and tyranny, and so any editorial decision she dislikes must be a travesty.
Washington Post's Howard Kurtz that "Every once in awhile they'll [National Review] throw one of their people to the wolves to get good press in left-wing publications." I take personal offense to this charge. She's accusing us of betraying a friend for publicity, when in fact it was the other way around.
NR has succumbed to "PC hysteria," we've run pieces celebrating every PC shibboleth and bogeyman.
Paul Johnson has criticized Islam as an imperial religion. William F. Buckley himself has called, essentially, for a holy war. Rich Lowry wants to bring back the Shah, and I've written that Western Civilization has every right to wave the giant foam "We're Number 1!" finger as high as it wants.
The only difference between what we've run and what Ann considers so bravely iconoclastic on her part, is that we've run articles that accord persuasion higher value than shock value. It's true: Ann is fearless, in person and in her writing. But fearlessness isn't an excuse for crappy writing or crappier behavior.

To be honest, even though there's a lot more that could be said, I have no desire to get any deeper into this because, like with a Fellini movie, the deeper you get, the less sense Ann makes.

purplesofa

9/11 comment about widows

Ann Coulter Attacks 9/11 Widows

Conservative Author: 4 N.J. Wives Enjoyed Their Husbands' Deaths

NEW YORK, June 7, 2006

Ann Coulter (AP Photo/Jason DeCrow)

A Quote

"Contrary to Ms. Coulter's statements, there was no joy in watching men that we loved burn alive."

9/11 widows Kristen Breitweiser, Lorie Van Auken, Mindy Kleinberg and Patty Casazza

(AP) New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton accused commentator Ann Coulter of making a “vicious, mean-spirited attack” on outspoken 9/11 widows whom the television pundit described as “self-obsessed” and enjoying their husbands' deaths.

Coulter writes in a new book, “Godless: The Church of Liberalism,” that a group of New Jersey widows whose husbands perished in the World Trade Center act “as if the terrorist attacks happened only to them.”

She also wrote, “I've never seen people enjoying their husbands' deaths so much.”

Clinton, who has felt Coulter's criticism over the years, responded on Wednesday.

“Perhaps her book should have been called 'Heartless,’ ” the senator said. “I know a lot of the widows and family members who lost loved ones on 9/11. They never wanted to be a member of a group that is defined by the tragedy of what happened.”

The New York Democrat and former first lady said she found it “unimaginable that anyone in the public eye could launch a vicious, mean-spirited attack on people whom I've known over the last four and a half years to be concerned deeply about the safety and security of our country.”

New York's Republican Gov. George Pataki also voiced anger and surprise at Coulter's words.

“I was really stunned and I don't think it's at all fair or accurate,” Pataki said Wednesday in New York.

“I have spoken with many, many grieving family members and the hurt is real, the pain is real, the suffering four and a half years later has not lessened to any appreciable degree,” he said.

Coulter appeared Tuesday on NBC's “Today” show, and stuck by her stance, saying the women used their grief “to make a political point.”

Her criticism was aimed at four New Jersey women whom she dubbed “The Witches of East Brunswick,” after the town where two of them live.

They have spent the years since the 2001 terror attacks supporting an independent commission to examine government failures before the attack, and in the 2004 presidential campaign they endorsed Democrat John Kerry.

The women are Kristen Breitweiser, Lorie Van Auken, Mindy Kleinberg and Patty Casazza.

The women, who are still pushing for changes in how the government guards against future attacks, issued a joint statement after Coulter's television appearance.

“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,” the women said.

Stephanus

I've always seen her as the conservative Michael Moore. I lean somewhat to the conservative side of things and I have little time for Ann; I think she's tries too hard for sound bites and controversy than for hard-hitting balanced discussion.

wednesday

Ann Coulter is my hero.

frozen one

Ann Coulter is the far right version of the far left's Randi Rhodes (on Air America). I can only take either one of them for a few minutes at a time. I don't think Randi Rhodes has ever written a book. If someone could get Rhodes and Coulter to do a death cage match I'd pay to watch it.

TD

"A conservative Michael Moore" is a good epithet. Her opinions strike me as most unkind.

Arthur

I think she's pretty attractive, but I don't care for her personality. I have seen her interviewed on FOX News several times. It's obvious that she's a very intelligent woman, but I think she seems rather mean spirited.

stealyourface

I had never heard of her till this recent 9-11 widows remark. I did see her on Jay Leno with George Carlin. His gesture of blowing on his hands and rubbing them together summed her up perfectly. What a cold blooded woman.

free2beme

The liberals have their extreme in Michael Moore, and the conservatives have theirs in Ann. Personally, I do not believe she believes everything she says, but she does get every dollar she makes. Which means, she says what ever it takes to sale. Remember this though, we live in a society that likes to dance around the truth by always worrying about who they will offend. Even if what is said is true, if it is not positive, people will call you a hateful person. Even if it is true!!! Not that you are truthful, only that you are hateful. Why is that? Either way, Ann says what she wants, just like Michael Moore does. What a wonderful free country we live in.

SirNose586

I don't think lib'ruls have an equivalent to Mann. The closest person, as far as personal zeal and outspokenness goes, would probably be Cindy Sheehan.

Ann Coulter.

Ann Coulter Attacks 9/11 Widows

Conservative Author: 4 N.J. Wives Enjoyed Their Husbands' Deaths

Share this