Some Losers Who Dare to Criticize the Great Ann Coulter
Since many commenters have told me to lay off the Ann Coulter posts, here’s another one. (I’m a stubborn bastard. Didn’t you know that about me?) Thankfully, this one is short — it’s a couple of quick links to pieces by dumb-ass conservatives who obviously don’t understand her greatness:
- Michael Gaynor speaks of the dangers of mocking the Great Ann. Wimp.
- J.R. Dunn says that conservatives “need to retain the basic elements of the conservative persona, which include civility, urbanity, and a sense of class.” Pussy.
- Mike Krempasky calls Coulter a “detestable harpy” for saying that John Murtha is “the reason soldiers invented ‘fragging.’” Frankly, I’m shocked that Ann would suggest violence against someone she disagreed with. She’s never done that before, except for joking about assassinating Bill Clinton, joking about assassinating Justice Stevens, and joking about truck-bombing New York Times journalists. (What a jokester!)
All these people are obviously losers for criticizing the great Ann. Go mock them.
I have one comment about Ann and about this post, really.
“Please do not feed the trolls.”
Comment by Michael Heinz — 6/17/2006 @ 4:57 am
Paterico is in a unique situation for an internet pundit. Due to his job he is bound to have the occasional assassination threat lobbed at him by people who are a very credible threat. I think this makes him a bit more sensitive to the issue of Ann Coulter’s over the top comments regarding Murtha, Clinton, NYTimes building, excetera.
But there is no denying that if it werren’t for Ann’s bombastic comments regarding the Jersey girls, the media would have yawned at her book. So the message would have been lost without the 911 widows comment.
We live in a State that votes down referendum after referendum about child care for working families, school maintenance, and librarys, cLaiming the couple million it would cost is prohibitively high, only to vote in Fetal Stem Cell research at the cost of 3 billion dollars when the State is really hurting financially (whew). California really needs a book like “Godless” right at the moment. People need to think about what the newspapers are feeding them.
Comment by Papertiger — 6/17/2006 @ 5:30 am
“Since many commenters have told me to lay off the Ann Coulter posts, here’s another one.”
Sadly, Pat’s falling into the hubris I’ve witnessed on too many blogs. He can’t get his commenters to agree with him, so he’ll just keep bringing up the subject till everybody quits reading him.
Comment by sharon — 6/17/2006 @ 7:44 am
The line Ann crosses on a regular basis is “tough love.” It is hard to face your own shortcomings and awful to have someone point them out for you. The line the liberal left crosses hourly is the absurd line. When your spokesperson, is like Ried, Pelosi, Waxman, Durbin, Jackson Lee, Schumer and a whole list of blowhards who are Democrats first and Americans sometime later, facts play no part in the conversation..
Comment by Ray Simpson — 6/17/2006 @ 7:56 am
Mike Krempasky calls Coulter a “detestable harpy” for saying that John Murtha is “the reason soldiers invented ‘fragging.’” Frankly, I’m shocked that Ann would suggest violence against someone she disagreed with. You’re stretching to score a point against Coulter. Coulter’s saying (rightly or wrongly) that Murtha (an ex-officer) typifies the officers who have been targets of fragging. Coulter isn’t saying that Murtha should be fragged.
Comment by Tom — 6/17/2006 @ 8:12 am
Patterico all you’re doing is helping her sell books. That was the point of what she did in the first place.
Comment by Dwilkers — 6/17/2006 @ 8:37 am
So what’s so wrong about truck bombing the NYT?(:
Comment by btorrez — 6/17/2006 @ 8:59 am
She’s like Ward Churchill and Ted Rall combined.
Her schtick got old years ago. I used to get outraged by her–now I’m just bored.
Talk is cheap, Annie. Go Eric Rudolph and maybe you’ll be worth paying attention to again.
Comment by Geek, Esq. — 6/17/2006 @ 9:05 am
Look, it’s your blog and post what you want to. In general I like Ann. I think show goes over the top on occasion, but so do the kool-aid drinkers.
As one who started being a frequent reader here since the sock-puppet incident, I will say that I am getting tired of the Ann incident carrying of forever.
There are SO many other more important things to be talking about that for me I’m ready to leave this behind.
Comment by Charlie — 6/17/2006 @ 9:16 am
Agree with #4 and 10.
Unless it’s to increase posts and Technorati numbers, the topic’s been covered.
Comment by Vermont Neighbor — 6/17/2006 @ 10:07 am
here’s a hilarious ann coulter-related piece i saw the other day. warning: nsfw, foul language.
http://tinyurl.com/cg6nn
Comment by assistant devil's advocate — 6/17/2006 @ 11:35 am
Yep, Coulter is a blowhard, but I too wonder why so much ink — er, keystrokes — are being wasted on her.
Comment by mh — 6/17/2006 @ 11:51 am
When you all get the courage that Ann Colter has,then critizise,until then she wittily speaks for me. Go ahead now call me names,and do exactly what you accuse Ann of. You holier than thow folks need to get a grip.
Comment by jainphx — 6/17/2006 @ 11:58 am
The difference between Coulter and nitwits like Ward Churchill is twofold:
1) Coulter’s vicious characterizations have at least some vague connection to something her targets have done. The Jersey Girls are, in fact, the flip side of the Ghoulish Gold Star Mothers (not ALL Gold Star Mothers, just the ghouls) who Phillip Wylie nailed in GENERATION OF VIPERS. I’m not saying it’s fair - I’m saying there’s some connection. Churchill’s comment about “Little Eichmans” strikes me as pure bilious nonsequiteur.
2) Coulter is intentionally shocking and insulting. Churchill was actually surprised that anybody important to him objected. Oh, he was vaguely aware that what he said would annoy some of the Unwashed, but he thought he would get nothing but plaudits for his ‘courage’. Coulter knows she is setting off a firestorm, and does it anyway.
BTW: Coulter is also different from, say, Falwell in this regard. Falwell is like Churchill; he always thinks he is preaching only to the choir.
Coulter is like Mencken (not as good a writer or thinker, but like). She LIKES to stir up trouble. Creeps like Churchill do what they do because they like to be petted by the intellectual elite.
We do need to keep criticizing Coulter and her ilk; it’s one of the things that separates us from the Left - that we tell out attack-dogs when they get out of line BEFORE the political cost comes due. But let’s not loose track of the difference. The Left COMMONLY says things as bad or worse, and with far less justification. We’ve gotten used to it. Resigned to it. There is a degree to which objecting to Coulter is appeasement; “See, we’re not so bad. You don’t have to be so mean.”. THAT part of criticizing her I can live without.
Comment by C. S. P. Schofield — 6/17/2006 @ 12:00 pm
you’re beating a dead horse here. can you go after nancy grace now? that would amuse me the most.
[Yeah, I think I'm about done. Based on limited knowledge, I don't like Nancy Grace, either. But I've barely watched her and won't be posting about her. -- P]
Comment by assistant devil's advocate — 6/17/2006 @ 12:38 pm
I’m just not sure I see the point. I wouldn’t be caught dead next to Coulter, so why the extended excoriation?
Comment by mh — 6/17/2006 @ 2:13 pm
Coals to Newcastle, or Cement to Portland:
I have a lot of respect for Ann Coulter, she’s a brave girl. As far as I’m concerned, she can say whatever she wants about the Jersey Girls or John Murtha. She can call them names, trash talk, or throw spit balls. She can make fetish dolls and use little stick pins if she wants. Why, Ann can even use crude language and controversial descriptions if it helps make her point.
The Jersey Girls and Murtha have got some sharp criticism coming, and if Ann pushes it a bit over some imaginary line, how’s that any big deal? It’s not a crime yet to tell the truth, or to exaggerate to make a point. So, what’s Ann’s big terrible crime, using the word “enjoy” or exposing the Left’s sacred cows to appropriate scrutiny and public ridicule?
Sure, Ann could have used less offensive language, but why tiptoe around the point? These Jersey Girls traded on the death of their husbands to put themselves in the public eye and to push the loony Left’s extreme agenda. Same with that Sheehan shrew. The Jersey Girl’s newfound notoriety is derived exclusively from the tragedy of 9/11, from which they now enjoy both fame and riches. So, is Ann’s Coulter’s great transgression that she pulled the mask off a cheap charade, or that she could have used a better choice of words to do it?
Ann Coulter speaks truth to power, liberals can’t handle the truth, especially from an intelligent and attractive woman, so and they yell and scream, call her names, and try to ban her book. It’s their problem they can’t deal with a strong independent women who won’t knuckle under to shopworn stereotypes of what good looking, skinny girls are permitted to say in polite society these days. Liberals may not think the First Amendment applies to Ann Coulter, but it does.
Ann wrote about the false Religion of Liberalism and she skewered a few liberal sacred cows. If she hadn’t smacked the stuffing out of the Jersey Girls, the idiot Left, joined by pantywaist RINO’s and other soft-headed dupes, would have jumped on some other trivial point to rant about. So what, get over it.
Comment by Black Jack — 6/17/2006 @ 2:26 pm
I might not agree with you all the time, but I’ll keep on reading until I think you’re bloviating just to get attention..like Coulter.
Comment by Eddie Barrera — 6/17/2006 @ 2:50 pm
When Coulter attacked the Democrats for their policy of using uncriticizable spokespersons, it meant there was another unmentioned group she was also looking down upon at the same time. And who might that be? That would be the eggshell walking conservative pundits who were derelict in allowing the Democrats to get away with it.
You’ll recognize them, they are all in lockstep attacking Ann Coulter right now because they feel like she shined a light on them.
Comment by True Thurts — 6/17/2006 @ 3:52 pm
It’s official. After all this analysis, I like her even more.
Ann’s bravado is more than acceptable to get to the gist of today’s politics.
Comment by Vermont Neighbor — 6/17/2006 @ 4:21 pm
Re: #10
Since the thread’s numbers are jumping, I have to agree with 7:44 Sharon and 9:16 Charlie.
Comment by Vermont Neighbor — 6/17/2006 @ 4:26 pm
BlackJack says Liberals can’t handle the truth. To quote Larry Elder: Facts to a Liberal, are like Kryptonite to Superman.
Comment by Another Drew — 6/17/2006 @ 4:26 pm
To the folks praising Ann’s amazing bravery in being willing to say things that sell her books: some of you (True Thurts, anyone?) appear to be suggesting that I am as cowardly as the Great Ann is brave.
I have a post about that, here. And that is hopefully my last word for now on this shrill self-promoter.
Comment by Patterico — 6/17/2006 @ 4:34 pm
Ann Coulter is to political discourse what the Dixie Chicks are to country music.
Comment by Alan Kellogg — 6/17/2006 @ 11:44 pm
Patt..
Coulter is a disgrace and anyone who defends her ignorant rantings is a disgrace as well. To try to suggest that ANYONE else is even close to her in her ignorance and hate or that she basically has a good message but just bad wording, demonstrates just how far down the road we have come.
Her latest hatefilled crap is all the more amazing because it claims to be lamenting the loss of religion and spirituality while at the same time demonstrating a hate a vitrol that is trully amazing. The woman is clearly a disturbed personality but what is even more disturbing is the number of people that not only refuse to condemn it but either make excuses for it or actually approve of it.
She is able to get away with this because the radical right has been busy convincing everyone that there is no such thing as a “loyal opposition” in this country but only those that secretly hate America and want to destroy all that is good and decent and therefore they must be not just defeated but destroyed. Mix this with a healthy dose of fear and you produce the likes of Coulter.
Can anyone read the postings of some of these crackpost, even on a site as well run as this, and doubt the existance of a deep hate and desire to eleminate those that disagree?
Who says this nation is not on the brink of fascism??
We just dont like to call it that.
Keep up your efforts to reach them Pat but dont expect much. This hate and fear that motivates them are deeply rooted.
Comment by charlie — 6/20/2006 @ 5:17 am
Black Jack — can you find me an instance of liberals attempting to get Coulter’s book banned, please? If not, then perhaps your rhetoric has run away with you.
Comment by aphrael — 6/20/2006 @ 6:21 am
Here it is, Aph:
Book Burnings for Ann Coulter?
Posted by Greg Sheffield on June 12, 2006 - 10:20.
Two New Jersey state Assemblywomen, Joan Quigley and Linda Stende, want Ann Coulter’s new book, “Godless: The Church of Liberalism,” banned from all book stores in New Jersey. So much for free speech for opposing views.
Say the Assemblywomen:
“Ann Coulter’s criticism of 9-11 widows, whose only desire since the attacks have been to repair their shattered lives and protect other families from the horrors they have experienced, is motivated purely by petty greed and hate,” the two Democrats complained.
“Coulter’s vicious characterizations and remarks are motivated by greed and her desire to sell books . . . She is a leech trying to turn a profit off perverting the suffering of others.”
“No one in New Jersey should buy this book and allow Ann Coulter to profit from her hate-mongering. We are asking New Jersey retailers statewide to stand with us and express their outrage by refusing to carry or sell copies of Coulter’s book. Her hate-filled attacks on our 9-11 widows has no place on New Jersey bookshelves.”
http://newsbusters.org/node/5828
Comment by sharon — 6/20/2006 @ 8:34 am
Oh. So not a ban. Just asking for private companies to not stock it.
Comment by actus — 6/20/2006 @ 8:39 am
“Oh. So not a ban. Just asking for private companies to not stock it.”
ROFL! Nice spin, Actus. I’m sure if there were people on the right asking for some book not to be sold in bookstores, you’d have no problem calling that “a ban.”
Comment by sharon — 6/20/2006 @ 9:23 am
I was worried when it was a politician. I thought it was a real government ban that was being proposed. Quite troublesome. This is less so.
Comment by actus — 6/20/2006 @ 9:43 am
Sharon - thank you, that’s a fair point.
I don’t object to them organizing a boycott of the book, but asking bookstores to stop selling it is a bit much.
Comment by aphrael — 6/20/2006 @ 10:53 am
Not by much. Do you think it’s a coincidence that two New Jersey Ass. Women are asking all book stores in New Jersey to “voluntarily” censor the book? I don’t. If they were acting as private citizens, they’d be asking all book sellers in the world, or at least all book sellers in the U.S., to consider withdrawing the book. Alternatively, if they were simply grandstanding, it might make sense for each to ask all book sellers in her respective district to go P.C. on us. By calling for a de facto statewide ban, their thinly disguised message to book sellers is: play ball, or else.
Comment by Xrlq — 6/20/2006 @ 10:57 am
I think they’re calling on Jersey booksellers because htey’re jersey politicos. I don’t see any mention of bills being introduced or anything like that. If so, i’d be worried. Otherwise, it looks like the standard spirit of wishing others would not give a platform and profit for speech we don’t like.
Or else what? or else we’d have the most wonderful first amendment lawsuit in a while?
Comment by actus — 6/20/2006 @ 11:16 am
Re #26, aphrael asked a perfectly honest and straightforward question: “– can you find me an instance of liberals attempting to get Coulter’s book banned…” Please note, the operative word is “attempting.” The anticipated failure and consequent rebuke isn’t directly germane, revealing, yes, but it’s actually another issue and need not be addressed.
Notice my original accusation in # 17, it reads “Ann Coulter speaks truth to power, liberals can’t handle the truth, especially from an intelligent and attractive woman, so and they yell and scream, call her names, and try to ban her book.”
Again, both comments refer to attempts to organize a ban on Ann Coulter’s book, no one said that a ban has already been put in place. Even so-called liberals aren’t that stupid. Of course there are exceptions, see above. Not that they wouldn’t ban Ann’s book if they thought they could get away with it.
No, the Left hasn’t got the guts to take Ann on face to face. She has too much clout, too much access to broadcast TV, newspaper columns, and talk radio, and don’t forget blogs. If she was some powerless unknown girl from the hinterland, the Left would pull the plug on her free speech in mid-sentence.
Thanks, sharon, for responding to aphreal’s request. It seems he’s mostly satisfied now the attempted ban is real, although he doesn’t object to a boycott. Incidentally, if anyone cares, he and I were picking a related bone in the comments for Patterico’s 6/17 post: See, This is Why I Don’t Make These Promises…. (Actually, aphrael’s not much into it, but Psy’s taken up the slack, he’s interested in distinguishing between what’s witty or rude in Ann Coulter’s work.)
Comment by Black Jack — 6/20/2006 @ 12:29 pm
If Coulter is so smart why does she not know the difference between a soldier and a marine?
Comment by 11m-11b — 7/8/2006 @ 3:00 pm
[...] This is classic Greenwald: a confident assertion of fact, which is totally false. I have called Bill O’Reilly a “humorless and self-absorbed blowhard” and called Michael Savage a “moron.” I regularly denounce Ann Coulter here, and recently spent days boxing her about the ears for her numerous stupid and violent comments about public officials. There are so many posts I can’t link them all; a few examples here, here, here, here, and here. Regular commenters will tell you there are many more; indeed, they got very frustrated with me for being so obsessed on the topic. [...]
Pingback by Patterico’s Pontifications » Glenn Greenwald: Douchebag — 7/12/2006 @ 6:55 am