This Post Is Not Really About Ann Coulter . . . Exactly
[I never promise that "this is my last post about about _______" -- because you just never know. I will say that I'm sick of talking about Ann Coulter. But I have one more thing I want to say -- not really about her, exactly, but about a related issue. Hopefully, this will be my last post mentioning her for a while. -- Patterico]
Some commenters have recently suggested that critics of Ann Coulter like myself are just cowards, because we are ashamed that we didn’t say rude things about the Jersey Girls like brave Ann Coulter did. For example, some guy calling himself True Thurts says this:
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.
This is typical of other similar comments people have made in recent days.
To the extent that this clown and others like him are talking about me, I have three points to make:
- The people lobbing these accusations of cowardice all appear to be so gutless that they are not publishing their comments under their true names.
- You’re talking to someone who wrote an op-ed in a major national newspaper that brought up some very uncomfortable facts about Mother Sheehan that were being ignored by the media. This, at a time when many in the country were so under the spell of Ms. Sheehan that they considered any criticism of her to be evil.
My piece was media criticism and not a slam on Sheehan per se, but part of its point was that the media was ignoring some statements of hers that painted her in a falsely positive light.
My piece was published under my real name: Patrick Frey. And I don’t make a secret of my name, or of what I do.
That’s what I’ve done. So, to you people suggesting that I’m a coward: what have you done, besides take anonymous potshots at me on a blog?
- It’s all well and good to admire the “bravery” of someone like Coulter, for whom the main consequence of being outrageous is increased book sales. By contrast, I am a Deputy District Attorney. Although I do not speak in my official capacity on this blog, lefties still like to use my position against me. Meaning that, when I speak publicly on controversial political matters, some leftist idiot inevitably suggests that my comments are inappropriate for someone in my position — and I shouldn’t be allowed to keep my job.
I’m not really worried by such statements, understand. I am just explaining to you what happens when I say things that upsets the leftists.
Coulter’s outrageous statements lead to money in her pocket. By contrast, if I speak out on issues that people are emotional about, someone threatens my job.
But I do it anyway.
So save me the crap about how I’m just not as courageous as Ann Coulter — or as you.
And if you are going to question my courage, show some of your own, and attach your name to the attack.
UPDATE: See Dubya says that she’s potentially risking her column, and points to this link. So I take it that some liberals want her to lose her column? Wow, that sounds like a real threat.
If the people who employ me were all Rush Limbaugh conservatives, and my job description was to make fun of liberals, I don’t think I’d take it as a real threat to my livelihood that some liberals were complaining about me. Again, as I say in the post, I would expect that to enhance my stature, if anything.
Sorry, that’s not a genuine risk, See Dubya.
UPDATE x2: True Thurts clarifies in comments that he wasn’t talking about me. I appreciate that.
But Patterico, a lot of people agree with you …
David Letterman: “Here’s what we know about Ann Coulter. She’s blonde, she’s single, and well, maybe someone will set her up with O.J.”
Letterman: “Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi was the world’s most unhinged lunatic. He’s now dead. So that moves Ann Coulter up to first place.”
Jay Leno: “Donald Rumsfeld said Al-Zarqawi was mean, vicious and hateful. So you know what that means? Ann Coulter could be next.”
Comment by Vermont Neighbor — 6/17/2006 @ 4:55 pm
Not sure I would take it seriously if someone said I was a “coward” for disliking Ann Coulter or disagreeing with her on anything and/or everything. Sort of like Ted Rall. It’s just a difference of opinions.
Comment by sharon — 6/17/2006 @ 5:47 pm
When I said;
I meant in no way to infer that you are a coward. Rather I thought to highlight the personal courage you display everyday just going to work.
Comment by Papertiger — 6/17/2006 @ 5:51 pm
I didn’t take it that way from you, Papertiger.
Comment by Patterico — 6/17/2006 @ 5:56 pm
You couldn’t infer that he was a coward, anyway.
Comment by CraigC — 6/17/2006 @ 6:19 pm
To the extent that this clown and others like him are talking about me, I have three points to make:
I wasn’t talking about you…but I sure did hit a nerve all the same. The lower-key ( “sane”, some would say ) conservative pundits make excellent arguments but I think they feel drowned out by Coulter and the like, a bit of professional jealousy results.
[I'm always amused by the idea that when someone takes an insulting comment as an insult, it must be true -- because it touched a nerve! If you weren't suggesting before that I was a coward, then are you now, with that comment? -- P]
Comment by True Thurts — 6/17/2006 @ 7:05 pm
I’m always amused by the idea that when someone takes an insulting comment as an insult, it must be true — because it touched a nerve! If you weren’t suggesting before that I was a coward, then are you now, with that comment? — P
BS. I’m suggesting that many conservatives adhere to a self defeating unique brand of political correctness that causes them to walk on eggshells to prevent upsetting libs.
Comment by True Thurts — 6/17/2006 @ 8:42 pm
>> that causes them to walk on eggshells to prevent upsetting libs. >>
Liberals know this — and it plays out in community events. Football teams having to go through name changes and the like.
Comment by Vermont Neighbor — 6/17/2006 @ 8:47 pm
So, to make it clear: no, you’re not calling me a coward.
I got another guy up the same thread who said:
Maybe he was talking to the previous commenter, and maybe he was talking to me. I don’t know, but I do know he was anonymous — yet he was talking about courage.
I have no problem with anonymity, but I do sort of think that if people are going to rag on others for being wusses about their opinions, they might disclose their freaking names so that their complaint doesn’t seem quite so comically lame.
Plus, the courage it takes for Ann to make statements that sell books — wow! Where can I get that sort of courage?! Just exactly what is she supposed to be afraid of?
To be clear: I hardly think that disclosing my opinions is courageous either — just maybe relative to people who don’t even have the guts to attach their names to their own opinions. Fighting in the war — that’s what takes *real* courage. The rest of this is just bullshit tapping on a keyboard.
Comment by Patterico — 6/17/2006 @ 8:50 pm
Sometimes we agree; I’m 2 for 3 with you on AC. I’d like to bring up fine whine too. I don’t know that you dug it how I explained the interrelationsip between ‘fat’ and ‘Jewish’ in the insult?
Comment by michael — 6/17/2006 @ 9:07 pm
[...] I do hope Patterico gets over his Coulter obsession long enough to see this ridiculous LA Times editorial: A hurricane of fraud? MOVE OVER, RECKLESS CONSUMERS. The Federal Emergency Management Agency has outdone your irresponsible spending by racking up a debit card bill so outrageous it could have been created using Mad Libs. Sex-change operations, vacations to the Dominican Republic and wild nights at strip clubs were all bought on the government's dime by both con artists and legitimate victims of Hurricane Katrina. But try to keep that knee from jerking — although FEMA's oversight was lacking, wasted money is an inevitable byproduct of providing rapid emergency assistance. [...]
Pingback by Reality and Sanity » Blog Archive » LA Times Thinks Irresponsible Spending of FEMA Relief by Katrina Victims Not Their Fault — 6/17/2006 @ 9:10 pm
That’s an interesting idea. To complain about a host’s commentary, guests should give their name - for credibility?
Talk radio is like a blog exchange … we know the host but the caller is anonymous. I think 98% of the posts here are polite, mostly, and usually articulate. I don’t think any less if it’s a handle instead of a name.
Comment by Vermont Neighbor — 6/17/2006 @ 9:23 pm
That’s an interesting idea. To complain about a host’s commentary, guests should give their name - for credibility?
No. To complain about a host’s courage in expressing his opinions.
Talk radio is like a blog exchange … we know the host but the caller is anonymous.
Yeah, but let’s say that the caller says:
and the host says:
to which the caller replies:
or some other transparently phony handle.
Who’s the “pussy” now?
Comment by Patterico — 6/17/2006 @ 9:27 pm
So, to make it clear: no, you’re not calling me a coward.
Not at all. Coulter had to have recognized it in herself to succinctly speak about it. I must have recognized it in myself to be worked up about it. I don’t believe it’s a matter of cowardice.
Comment by True Thurts — 6/17/2006 @ 9:34 pm
The host doesn’t want the caller’s name. It’s not relevant, on air or at a blog. The whole purpose of electronic discussion rests on anonymity. For broadcast purposes, it’s required. Blog hosts will either apply a comment delay feature to screen responses before they go up, whereas a talk host may screen callers to gauge a certain compatability - or conflict. Mostly, we hear shows where the callers generally agree.
You actually are courageous just to keep this, a fast moving blog that allows posters to respond instantly. Don’t take this the wrong way, but you’re sensitive, Mr. P. It’s a little interesting. You need lots of TLC, at home and at the office. ; )
And I KNOW you’re fantastic at your job so no buddy flames, please. Your attention to detail, commitment and demand for accountability all support an exceptional work ethic.
Comment by Vermont Neighbor — 6/17/2006 @ 9:44 pm
The host doesn’t want the caller’s name. It’s not relevant, on air or at a blog.
If I had a talk show, and the caller called me a coward, it’s the first thing I’d ask for.
Comment by Patterico — 6/17/2006 @ 9:53 pm
No, you wouldn’t Patterico. You would do it once (maybe) and then it would leave your system. Trust me, the question of what’s your name doesn’t come to mind at all in that situation. For a variety of reasons.
Broadcast license of station
Your boss wouldn’t let you ask it more than once
You’re 2-3 steps ahead at the point of attack and you already have an assault question and a defense example pop into your head like a lit Roman Candle
You want that delicious combat to work with the clock on the wall. Whether it’s 30 seconds or a long 3 minutes, you will work that attack like a piece of clay
You care about everyone listening and you’ll maximize each response to keep people interested.
No one cares about the guy’s name. Just how you ease him out, and if it’s intriguing or not.
The few callers who do attack Michael Medved or Michael Savage (etc) are never asked their name. They’re generally skewered, roasted or pleasantly given a chance to explain their misguided beliefs. Without any question as to what their full name is (or real first name)…
Comment by Vermont Neighbor — 6/17/2006 @ 10:13 pm
Usually hostile callers attack the host as stupid or ill-informed. The best retort is to start discussing substance with them. “If you think I’m ill-informed, let’s find out how informed you are.” I’ve heard Larry Elder and Hewitt do it — and, done right, it’s effective.
I rarely hear callers deride the courage of the talk-radio host in terms of expressing their opinion — because it’s obvious that the talk-radio host’s name is on the line. But if a caller did that, the proper response would be: “If you think I’m non-courageous, let’s find out how courageous you are. Who are you?”
The caller would probaby dodge the question and look like a moron. The point would be made. That would be good radio.
Comment by Patterico — 6/17/2006 @ 10:18 pm
The point is, if someone wants to say I don’t have the courage of my convictions (like that oh-so-brave bookseller Coulter does), it’s pretty comical for them to make that particular charge behind a pseudonym.
This is not to run down all pseudonymous commenters — only those who question my courage in terms of expressing my views.
Comment by Patterico — 6/17/2006 @ 10:20 pm
Well, you’re thinking in terms of a blog and I can’t keep offering concrete examples of why this name-identity tactic would not make good radio. In fact, it would threaten a station’s broadcast license. Most importantly, it derails the hidden elements of an interview, in which the host is in control and not asking pointless schoolyard questions. Your red hot segment will get derailed if you apply this non-starter question.
Specific politically-based complaints are pretty common for hosts. I have never heard anyone called stupid.
But all the same, if you ever do an Internet show you’ll have more freedom to call the shots … and jump in and out of potholes. I’ll be listening, but also in hopes you think forward, dance like Astaire and never stagnate.
Comment by Vermont Neighbor — 6/17/2006 @ 10:35 pm
If demanding a full name would threaten a station’s license, then I would just say: “Well, your complaint of cowardice is pretty stupid, Michael No-Last-Name, since you’re not giving your full name here and I am.”
Which, come to think of it, is pretty much what I’m doing here.
I just don’t appreciate being called a coward, pure and simple. And on a related note, nobody has explained to me yet just exactly why Coulter is considered so goddamn courageous. What exactly is she risking again, other than higher book sales?
Comment by Patterico — 6/17/2006 @ 10:40 pm
She’s risking a nationally syndicated column, which is not insignificant.
Not that I disagree with your underlying take on AC.
Comment by See-Dubya — 6/17/2006 @ 10:47 pm
It is insignificant, if it’s liberals after her column.
I have updated the post to mock your comment.
Comment by Patterico — 6/17/2006 @ 11:01 pm
That’s true about her syndicated column. She has been canceled few times in the past. And she also risks a pie in the face!
Comment by Vermont Neighbor — 6/17/2006 @ 11:01 pm
And remember USA Today from a couple summers ago, when they canceled Ann’s daily opinion column from the Democratic convention. So every time she speaks out, you know, there’s a chance an editor will trim her earnings and trim her national exposure.
(Coulter told the online edition of Editor & Publisher magazine that “USA TODAY doesn’t like my ‘tone,’ humor, sarcasm, etc., which raises the intriguing question of why they hired me to write for them.”)
Comment by Vermont Neighbor — 6/17/2006 @ 11:10 pm
Every pie in the face is another 10,000 books sold.
Comment by Patterico — 6/17/2006 @ 11:10 pm
Sorry, pal. She already lost a column at National Review (Online, I think) for her “invade, kill their leaders, and convert them to Christianity” line.
Comment by See-Dubya — 6/17/2006 @ 11:14 pm
What do they pay per column? Any idea? What is it, $50 per column?
Do you think that the scratch from this publicity campaign might possibly make up for that?
I got crocodile tears here.
Comment by Patterico — 6/17/2006 @ 11:17 pm
Plus, there’s a difference between courage and just plain stupidity. That point is getting lost in the mix here too.
Comment by Patterico — 6/17/2006 @ 11:17 pm
Yes, but I think they paid Ann Coulter a bit more than that.
Usually people lose columns for dishonesty (Doug Bandow) or accusations of dishonesty (Michael Fumento), and not for extremism. If they say something too hot in a column, they’ll just kill that column.
But I notice that when she made her”towelhead” comment, she changed it to “jihad monkey” for her syndicated column when it ran on Townhall.com. So I htink she is a little concerned about getting too marginalized or alienating too many publishers. She’ll say things in a book she won’t say in a column. She’s walking the line here, getting just enough controversy to keep her fans engorged and tingling, but not enough to get kicked out of syndication.
She may have miscalculated.
Comment by See-Dubya — 6/17/2006 @ 11:22 pm
Patterico, you claim Coulter is not risking anything because her employers are conservatives and only liberals are complaining about her. This is a pretty unconvincing claim considering the amount of complaining you have been doing about her. Or are you a secret liberal?
Coulter is also risking what every prominent person risks, a nut with a gun and a grudge. People as deliberately provocative as she is are in fact displaying considerable personal courage.
Comment by James B. Shearer — 6/17/2006 @ 11:50 pm
James,
It doesn’t matter to me why Coulter says what she says, what matters to me is when she is just plain wrong, or deliberately insulting, and refuses to correct her error when said error is pointed out to her. The woman has all the intellectual courage of Dan Rather.
To quote Harlan Ellison, “You have the right to your opinion, you don’t have the right to be wrong.”
Comment by Alan Kellogg — 6/18/2006 @ 12:27 am
Point 2 is valid, but Point 3 is a bit strained, given the quasi-First Amendment protections you enjoy (this time I do mean “derive a secondary benefit from,” without regard to whether you subjectively enjoy them or not) as a civil servant. Point 1, on the other hand, is just plain silly. If you face off with an anonymous commenter whose argument boils down to “yer a coward, unlike me,” then sure, raising the commenter’s own cowardice bears on that contrast quite nicely. But if the essence of the argument is “yer a coward, unlike Ann Coulter,” then the commenter’s courage/cowardice is not legitimately at issue, and it’s a cheap shot to act as though it is. I don’t believe for a minute that you are a coward, but if I did, watching you demand the identity of the anonymous commenter who called you on it would tend to confirm that suspicion, not to debunk it. After all, the fact that the guy calling you a coward may himself be a coward has no bearing on the question of whether or not you are. Quickly changing the subject and going after him instead, does. It’s a dodge, not a valid counter-argument.
Personally, I think Barry Bonds is a slow runner, a lousy fielder, and a so-so thrower. I think Ted Rall draws poorly, and that every song ever recorded by Poison, Alice in Chains or Jane’s Addiction sucks ass. Am I precluded from doing so because I have even less talent in these areas than they do? Or am I allowed to say these things, anonymously even, where the implicit contrast I’m drawing is to other baseball players, cartoonists and rock stars, and not to myself?
Comment by Xrlq — 6/18/2006 @ 6:13 am
“You’re a coward” carries the implicit message “unlike me.” “You’re a coward, unlike Ann Coulter” carries the implicit message “and unlike me.”
To make an unrelated point, Xrlq, just how obsessed are you with Ann Coulter? I note that, unlike Instapundit, you have posted several items about her in recent days. It indicates an unhealthy obsession on your part, as compared to, say, Instapundit.
(If anyone doesn’t understand the point I just made, they’ll soon be helping me make it.)
Comment by Patterico — 6/18/2006 @ 10:47 am
James B. Shearer:
Coulter is also risking what every prominent person risks, a nut with a gun and a grudge. People as deliberately provocative as she is are in fact displaying considerable personal courage.
Mmmm, okay. I guess by your logic there’s nobody more courageous than Ted Rall. That’s certainly how he sees it.
He lost his cartoon’s spot in the Washington Post due to the Terror Widows cartoon. And he gets regular death threats.
If you want to say Ted Rall has courage as well, to be consistent, then I guess you have something of a point. But including Ted Rall shows how silly the point is, because he’s a twit. I’m just not sure how admirable it is when someone’s “courageous” acts are virtually always stupid as well. As I said above, there is indeed a difference between courage and stupidity, and I think we’re conflating the two here.
Ultimately, as I said above in the thread, I’d prefer to save the word “courage” for people who really display it, and do great things with it. Like our soldiers.
Patterico, you claim Coulter is not risking anything because her employers are conservatives and only liberals are complaining about her. This is a pretty unconvincing claim considering the amount of complaining you have been doing about her. Or are you a secret liberal?
You got me!
Yeah, Ann Coulter sure displays a lot of courage, risking a few posts from Patterico, who gets 2000-3000 visitors a day. He might even convince one person to change their mind about her! (Actually, as we have seen, that’s not even true.) Amazing, that kind of courage.
Comment by Patterico — 6/18/2006 @ 11:01 am
If made by one blogger to another blogger, or by one talk show host to another, etc., I agree. But when a random calls a talk show host to bitch and whine, I’m more inclined to interpret that as a “why can’t you be more like my hero so-and-so” dig than “why can’t you be more like me.” The same is true, albeit to a lesser degree, of random commenters. They don’t expect you to be like them, they expect you to be like their heros. Thus, when you turn around and say “oh yeah, if I’m such a coward, why are you anonymous,” it smacks of Barry Bonds being told “my grandmother can run faster than that,” and having him respond “Oh yeah? I’ll race her any day! Then we’ll see who’s really faster!”
Comment by Xrlq — 6/18/2006 @ 11:03 am
Xrlq,
A consummately silly point.
If someone says “Barry Bonds is slow” and their companion replies “as if you’re fast!” — they’ll probably reply “I never said I was.”
Cowardice is different from speed. When almost anyone says “You’re a coward,” it’s assumed that they implicitly mean “and I’m not.”
If someone reads a war story and says: “What a coward this soldier is — he didn’t even throw himself on the grenade to save his pals” his companion might well say: “Hmmmm. I note you’re not even over there fighting the war.” And that would be a valid point, because the speaker’s assumed message was: “I would have done it differently.”
(Note that this is different from the “chickenhawk “argument. Most war-supporters don’t go around questioning the courage of soldiers. If they did, the chickenhawk argument would be valid.)
Comment by Patterico — 6/18/2006 @ 11:11 am
Not sure where you get the idea tht “coward” automatically implies comparisons to oneself more than any other criticism does, but whatever. I will grant you this much, however. Speaking purely hypothetically, if some moron who hadn’t even been following this debate were to suddenly jump in the middle of it now and call both of us idiots, it would be reasonable to assume that he/she/it consider himself/herself/itself to be smarter than either of us, and could pose a credibility problems for him/her/it if this proved not to be the case.
Comment by Xrlq — 6/18/2006 @ 1:33 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 @ 6:49 am