Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Sandman on July 24, 2002, 09:41:21 PM
-
Ann Coulter, it's time to meet the truth (http://www.suntimes.com/output/roeper/cst-nws-roep22.html).
Enjoy...
-
Is it fair for me to point out this is an opinion of an opinion, and while an entertaining read, holds no more merit than Coulter's book? Is it fair to point out your author does a fair amount of guessing about the sources of Coulter's remarks?
Kinda like translating Don McLean's "American Pie"... it seems so obvious, until he tells you you have it all wrong...
-
It's absolutely fair to point out that it's an opinion of an opinion.
Is political meda attention anything but?
-
sounded like the last point was catchin her in a flat out lie.
hows that opinion?
-
A quote from Roeper' editorial:
The "joke" quote is attributed to director Robert Altman, who was primarily criticizing the Bush administration. Also, Altman was talking not about genuine displays of patriotism, but the commercialized omnipresence of the flag. As he later told People magazine, "I don't think [the American flag] should be on brassieres."
Rebuttal:
Check out Swoop's Wednesday babe
nuff said
-
Roeper:
"A kicked dog barks..............."
Cabby
-
Originally posted by Kieran
Is it fair for me to point out this is an opinion of an opinion, and while an entertaining read, holds no more merit than Coulter's book? Is it fair to point out your author does a fair amount of guessing about the sources of Coulter's remarks?
Kinda like translating Don McLean's "American Pie"... it seems so obvious, until he tells you you have it all wrong...
I read the article twice, and I still don't see the author "guessing" at a source. Each time he says the source "cited" by Coulter. Doesn't sound like a guess to me.
What about the Katie Couric quote?
-
every dog i ever kicked yelped.
lazs
-
An ongoing theme of Slander is that liberals never want to talk issues--that it's all about name-calling and making emotional arguments.
Ahem. From Coulter's own book:
P. 26: "The [Ku Klux] Klan sees the world in terms of race and ethnicity. So do liberals!"
P. 157: "The good part of being a Democrat is that you can commit crimes, sell out your base, bomb foreigners, and rape women, and the Democratic faithful still think you're the greatest."
p. 123: "Everyone knows it's an insult to be called a liberal, widely understood to connote a dastardly individual."
p. 181: Katie Couric is "the affable Eva Braun of morning TV."
Good thing Coulter isn't like those liberals who resort to cheap generalizations and insanely inaccurate accusations.
ROFL
hey Hortlund! You reading this?
-
I think the fact that she used the word "dastardly" is reason enough for summary execution. I mean who the hell uses the word "dastardly"? What the hell is a dastard? Is it a typo?? What the hell is she playing at anyway??? :confused:
-
Hehe, and my favorite line of all:
Coulter reminds me of the little girl in "Hey Arnold!" who shouts in Arnold's face that she hates him--though she secretly loves him.
Maybe that's how Ann feels about liberals. Maybe deep down, she's got a crush on us. It's kinda cute.
from day 2
Here (http://www.suntimes.com/output/roeper/cst-nws-roep23.html)
-
Excuse me
Many fine Republican gentlemen find Miss Coulter to be beautiful and sexy. Those fine boney chicken legs shows that the highly admired lady doesn't overeat. Her small chest size is petit and perky.
Please don't admosish this fine spokeswoman for the Republican party she's alot more pretty than that Janet Reno!
-
Man, I can't believe I have to ask but can you stop talking and start posting upside down naked brunette pics? Thanks.
-
Of course I can assume he is guessing. He doesn't quote page and paragraph, so I can safely assume he is only loosely attributing her remarks to remarks made by others. In other words, unless he crawled into her head, or is directly quoting her as saying she used this or that statement, then his remarks are just as much a guess as were hers.
Now I admittedly have not read her book, and she may indeed do this in the course of the text. I just haven't seen anything yet to suggest she has. And as you recall, many of you were quick to jump on the character assassination train when her comments were first posted as gospel by one of our frequent patrons. You rightfully pointed out the unsubstantiated aspects of her writing. Well, here I am pointing out your author's attacks that are in my mind very similar.
It would be like you saying something like "Hizookas" and then I would turn and say you were definitely making a reference to Mahn-duh-BO-lee's or Rrrrrrrrram's observations. You might or might not, but I couldn't know for sure, could I? ;)
-
http://www.dailyhowler.com/n070802.shtml
SOMETIMES YOU FEEL LIKE YOU’RE READING A NUT:
To his credit, Christopher Caldwell didn’t play nice in his review of Ann Coulter’s new Slander. “he has produced a piece of political hackwork,” he says, writing in Sunday’s Washington Post. “The deeper into her subject she gets, the more she resorts to the tools of calumny and propaganda she professes to critique.” Caldwell hails from the Weekly Standard, but he’s willing to play it straight about Coulter’s pathologically inaccurate book. How hard-hitting is Caldwell’s critique? He finally turns to the type of language a person must use to describe Coulter’s work. At one point in Slander, according to Caldwell, Coulter “enter the territory of those leftist nuts who say we’re living in a dictatorship because Noam Chomsky isn’t on the front page of the New York Times every single day”
No, he doesn’t quite say that Coulter’s a “nut”—but he comes admirably close. Indeed, there is no polite way to describe the nonsense found throughout Coulter’s book. Simply put, Coulter’s accounts of all matters, large and small, are almost pathologically bogus. Unfortunately, cable producers—always pleased to make a joke of our discourse—have no present plans to take notice.
Consider just one of the ludicrous moments in Slander. In Chapter 9, Coulter complains about the press corps’ use of the terms “Christian conservative” and “religious right.” According to Coulter, “[t]he point of the phrase ‘religious right’ or ‘Christian conservative’ is not to define but to belittle.” And lefties, of course, get a pass:
COULTER (page 166): Despite the constant threat of the “religious right” in America, there is evidently no such thing as the “atheist left.” In a typical year, the New York Times refers to either “Christian conservatives” or the “religious right” almost two hundred times. But in a Lexis/Nexis search of the entire New York Times archives, the phrases “atheist liberals” or “the atheist left” do not appear once. Only deviations from the left-wing norm merit labels.
In a footnote, Coulter extends her complaint. “In a one year period (roughly corresponding to calendar year 2000), the New York Times found occasion to mention either ‘Christian conservatives’ or the ‘religious right’ 187 times. Not once did the paper refer to ‘atheist liberals’ or ‘the atheist left.’” To Coulter, of course, this is all a sign of gruesome bias. She goes on to claim that the terms “religious right” and “Christian conservative” are now used “[j]ust as some people once spat out the term ‘Jew’ as an insult.”
It certainly makes for high excitement, but does it make any sense? Do newspapers use “Christian conservative” as an emblem of hatred, and avoid “atheist left” due to liberal bias? If so, we have big news to share. If Coulter’s NEXIS search has proven these things, then the once-conservative Washington Times is spilling with lib bias, too.
In the calendar year 2000, how often did the New York Times refer to “Christian conservatives” or the “religious right?” A NEXIS search of that year presents 182 references. But the Washington Times—a much slimmer paper—had 151 such cites that same year. And how about those other terms—“atheist liberals” or “the atheist left?” Incredibly, Coulter was right in one of her claims; the New York Times never used either term. But guess what? The Washington Times never used the terms, either. If Coulter has sniffed out a vast left-wing plot, Wes Pruden is in on it too.
Why do newspapers write about “Christian conservatives?” Because they exist, and because they’re important. And why don’t we read about the “atheist left?” Because the group doesn’t exist. That’s why the New York Times doesn’t mention the group; that’s why the Washington Times doesn’t mention it, either. Everyone in America knows this is true—until they read Coulter’s cracked book.
But then, such nonsense fills every page of this book. There is no other pundit—of the left, right or center—who engages in such pathological foolishness. Caldwell, a conservative, was prepared to say “Nut.” Why won’t Mickey Kaus say it also?
TOMORROW: Mickey Kaus spent ten seconds, tops, researching Katie Couric’s recent “catfight.”
-
WRONG FROM THE START: Unsurprisingly, Ann Coulter’s bald-faced dissembling starts on page one, with the very first claim in her book. She complains about the way “the left” calls Tom DeLay naughty names like “the Hammer.” (The Washington Times archive is full of examples of conservatives calling DeLay “The Hammer.” The Washington Post article which Coulter cites quotes Christian conservative Marshall Wittman calling DeLay “Dirty Harry.”) But Coulter’s quintessential, trademark dissembling is found in her follow-up claim. How badly does “the left” treat DeLay? Just because he believes in God, they even compare him to Hitler:
COULTER (page 1): For his evident belief in a higher being, DeLay is compared to savage murderers and genocidal lunatics on the pages of the New York Times. (“History teaches that when religion is injected into politics—the Crusades, Henry VIII, Salem, Father Coughlin, Hitler, Kosovo—disaster follows.”)
As usual, Coulter is baldly deceiving her readers. Because we’re familiar with the lady’s bad problem, we looked up that quote from the New York Times. It comes from a column by Maureen Dowd, “The God Squad,” written on June 20, 1999.
In fairness, Dowd does spend five paragraphs on DeLay. She slams him for killing gun control legislation after the Columbine shootings. She criticizes him for statements he made at a rally of ministers. “This is the season of cheap virtue,” Dowd writes. “Politicians are rushing to take God’s name in vain.”
But that’s the end of the day for DeLay. Guess which “politicians” she’s directly discussing by the time she gets to that turrible quote? She isn’t discussing DeLay any more. She’s discussing George Bush—and Al Gore:
DOWD: The season of sanctimony isn’t confined to the legislative branch. According to Time, George W. Bush decided to run for President at a private prayer service with his family last January: “Pastor Mark Craig started preaching about duty, about how Moses tried to resist God’s call, and the sacrifice that leadership requires. And as they sat there, Barbara Bush leaned over to the son who has always been most like her and said, ‘He’s talking to you, George.’”
You’d think W. would be aware of the perils of religiosity after he had to spend all that time clarifying his 1993 comment that people who do not accept Jesus Christ as a personal Saviour cannot go to Heaven.
In his announcement speech in Carthage, Al Gore joined the God Squad, intoning that “most Americans are hungry for a deeper connection between politics and moral values; many would say ‘spiritual values.’ Without values of conscience, our political life degenerates.”
Faith is an intensely personal matter. It should not be treated as a credential or reduced to a sound bite. History teaches that when religion is injected into politics—the Crusades, Henry VIII, Salem, Father Coughlin, Hitler, Kosovo—disaster follows.
Was “the Times” comparing DeLay to Hitler? More directly, it was comparing Al Gore. But so it goes on every page, all through Coulter’s pathological book. Meanwhile, Mickey Kaus thinks this is just fine. We have a strange question: Why is that?
A REAL PAGE-TURNER: Coulter keeps it up on page two. To cite just one example of several, she starts in on favorite mark Katie Couric:
COULTER (page two): Americans wake up to “America’s Sweetheart,” Katie Couric, berating Arlen Specter about Anita Hill ten years after the hearings.
The implication is clear; Couric won’t stop flogging Anita Hill. And she won’t stop “berating” Republicans. And so we looked up Coulter’s reference, a Specter appearance on the March 6, 2001 Today. The solon was there to promote a new book. “Nice to have you,” Couric said. “What motivated you to write this book?” And you guessed it; Specter cited his desire to discuss the Anita Hill matter:
SPECTER: Because I wanted to tell what is happening behind the scenes. I have been criticized for more than three decades for my work as one of the young staff lawyers on the Warren Commission where I came up with the single bullet theory, and I thought it was important to write it all down just exactly why I came to that conclusion and why the commission accepted it. I go into some of the background on the Professor Anita Hill/Justice Clarence Thomas controversy, take up some questions which never got to the public, such as why we never called Angela Wright, who was a young woman who had a story very similar to Anita Hill’s. I go into the background of what happened on Judge Bork’s confirmation hearing and one of the big concerns that I had about Judge Bork on his technical approach and lack of humanitarianism, when he upheld the decision which said that women who worked for a lead company either had to consent to be sterilized or to lose their jobs, which I thought was exactly wrong.
After one question on the Warren Commission and two more questions about the Bork hearings, Couric asked exactly one question about the Anita Hill case.
As we’ll see, this gong-show dissembling litters this book. Why does Mickey Kaus seem to like it?
-
ANN COULTER, WITH HELP FROM HER FRIENDS: No doubt about it. According to Coulter, life is tough if you’re a conservative, constantly targeted by “the left.” How tough is it? Here’s the question Katie Couric asked when she “berated” poor Arlen Specter (see yesterday’s HOWLER for background):
COURIC: You know, you angered a lot of feminists when you accused Anita Hill. In fact, you detail how she changed her testimony during questioning, during the Clarence Thomas confirmation hearings. And you accused her of publicly, quote, “flat out perjury.” Any regrets?
“Any regrets!” What a zinger! Somehow, Specter soldiered on. “I think it was an impolitic thing to say,” he replied. “But I think that it was warranted on the facts. And in this book, I go into great detail as to how I came to that conclusion and why, and how another key member of the Judiciary Committee agreed with me.” According to the NBC transcript, Couric berated him further:
COURIC: Uh-huh.
SPECTER: And it was necessary in my view to find out what happened as best we could. There was a very late challenge to Clarence Thomas, and I thought that as a matter of fairness, we had to try to find out the facts.
Couric asked no follow-up question, asking next about Marc Rich—a topic “the left” will always raise whenever it wants to score points.
Amazing, isn’t it? Couric asked a single, mild question about a subject which Specter had brought up himself. She posed no follow-up question. But this is one of Coulter’s first examples—on page two of her book—of the way “the public square is wall-to-wall liberal propaganda.” Of course, her misused readers have no way of knowing how mild Couric’s questioning actually was. Coulter—dissembling, as she does through her book—provides a phantasmagoric account of this exchange. How did Coulter describe the session? Let’s review. We’re not making this up:
COULTER (page two): In this universe, the public square is wall-to-wall liberal propaganda. Americans wake up in the morning to “America’s Sweetheart,” Katie Couric, berating Arlen Specter about Anita Hill ten years after the hearings…
As a description of Couric’s exchange with Specter, that is pure pathology. But then, Coulter baldly misleads her readers on virtually every page of this laughable, corrupt book.
But Coulter is appearing on TV shows now to peddle her book, and her hosts are too lazy, too incompetent, too bought-off and scared to challenge her crackpot dissembling. Last night, Bill O’Reilly’s worthless performance qualified him for a spot down the row from Ted Williams. At Slate, meanwhile, Mickey Kaus—too lazy and indifferent to the public interest to dirty his hands with actual research—says that a certain part of Coulter’s book “appears to be completely accurate.” In fact, the part of the book to which Kaus refers is also absurdly misleading and bogus. We’ll look at the topic in question next week (sneak preview offered below).
We’re reminded of the hoary old joke about Moses playing golf. (Easily offended people, stop reading.) In Heaven, the Holy Trinity invites Moses to fill out a foursome. Needless to say, God the Father has the honors; Jesus and the Holy Spirit tee off next. Moses watches as they hit a succession of Biblically-themed, perfect hole-in-one trick-shots. After the Dove of Peace takes the Holy Spirit’s ball in his mouth and drops it neatly into the hole, Moses can’t hold it in any longer. “Are we here to play golf,” Moses asks, “or are we really just here to f*ck around?”
Coulter is a crackpot, a clown—and a balls-out dissembler. Her procedures are an insult to the American public interest. And so we have a simple question for lazy O’Reilly and worthless Kaus. Nobody made you host a TV show. Nobody forced you to go on the web. But boys, are you here to perform your actual duties? Or are you really just here to f*ck around?
SNEAK PREVIEW: Did Couric call Reagan an “airhead?” (No.) Did she attribute that claim to biographer Edmund Morris? (Yes.) As you probably know, Coulter is currently riding this topic as she angrily tours the country. It’s the topic O’Reilly snored through last night. Kaus pretended to review this same topic.
Predictably, the background to the silly story can’t be gleaned from Coulter’s book. Details to follow next week. But as a sneak preview, let’s recall what was going on in the final week of September 1999, as Morris’ book was about to appear. During that period, many people were saying that Morris had called Ronald Reagan an “airhead.” (They weren’t exactly wrong, by the way.) Coulter savages Couric’s work on September 27 and 29, 1999. But during this period, many others were saying that Edmund Morris called Reagan an airhead. Here’s someone Coulter forgot to cite. No, he’s not on “the left:”
SEAN HANNITY, 9/27/99: Welcome back to Hannity & Colmes. I’m Sean Hannity. Coming up, the authorized biography of Ronald Reagan calls him, quote, an airhead. And it is upsetting a lot of the former president’s supporters. That debate, that controversy, is straight ahead.
SEAN HANNITY, 9/30/99: Still to come, former Reagan Attorney General Edwin Meese. He sounds off on that controversial book that calls President Reagan an airhead. That debate straight ahead as Hannity & Colmes continues.
Last night on O’Reilly, Coulter condemned Couric for making the same sorts of statements. She said the statements showed that Katie Couric is “a pleasant morning television host who hides behind her charm and beauty to engage in systematic propaganda of all sorts of left-wing ideas.” But Hannity—and many other talkers—were saying the very same things at the time. Coulter, dissembling, left that part out. Needless to say, Bill was clueless.
WALL-TO-WALL PROPAGANDA: Two quotes from September 27, 1999. Included is one of the very remarks for which Ann has been trashing poor Katie:
KATIE COURIC, 9/27/99: Good morning. The Gipper was an airhead. That’s one of the conclusions of a new biography of Ronald Reagan that’s drawing a tremendous amount of interest and fire today, Monday, September the 27th, 1999.
SEAN HANNITY, 9/27/99: Welcome back to Hannity & Colmes. I’m Sean Hannity. Coming up, the authorized biography of Ronald Reagan calls him, quote, an airhead. And it is upsetting a lot of the former president’s supporters.
According to Coulter, Couric was pushing the left’s propaganda. Hannity? He’s been disappeared.
-
TRUST BUT VERIFY: When the New York Times’ Janet Maslin reviewed Slander, she had some good solid fun with a footnote. “
- ne bit of proof that Phyllis Schlafly is treated dismissively by the left comes from a People magazine review of The Muppets Take Manhattan,” she chuckled. Indeed, just how eager was author Ann Coulter to slam the press corps’ treatment of Schlafly? She went all the way back to 1984 to cite the Muppet movie review, which included a jab at the Illinois icon. Of course, Coulter’s text doesn’t say what she’s citing. You have to read the footnote to see how far she went to find a vile slam at the right.
Maslin has some fun with this footnote, but gives too much credence to others. “A great deal of research supports Ms. Coulter’s wisecracks,” she writes—apparently not understanding how much of this “research” has simply been made up by Coulter. Do reviewers ever fact-check books? If Maslin had checked the “780 footnotes” she approvingly cites, she might have seen—and she might have told readers—how much of this book is just false.
As we’ve seen, if Maslin had fact-checked Slander’s first page, she would have found instant dissembling (see the DAILY HOWLER, July 11). Page two? The same sad result. But Coulter loves to mask bogus claims with a footnote. Indeed, when Coulter limns Schlafly, she does it again. She slams the press corps’ performance:
COULTER (page 40): [T]he mainstream media ignore Schlafly when not deploying their trademark elitist snubs. Revealing true facts about Schlafly would inevitably result in unfavorable comparisons with inconsequential feminists. Not one of Schlafly’s books has ever been reviewed in the New York Times. Schlafly is preposterously demeaned with articles reporting that she is trying to remain “relevant.”
That last claim is duly footnoted; Coulter cites a Chicago Tribune piece from 8/1/96. (Her charge is plural, but there’s only one cite.) But in fact, the Tribune’s profile of Schlafly—by the AP’s Jim Salter—is flattering from beginning to end. In paragraph one, Salter says that Schlafly “will be attending her 11th GOP convention this month…showing no intention of being irrelevant” (emphasis added). He closes with a detailed review of Schlafly’s impressive career:
SALTER: Schlafly rose to national prominence in 1964, when she wrote “A Choice Not an Echo,” a history of the Republican convention, regarded as a manifesto for the far Right movement that championed Barry Goldwater.
Then in the early 1970s, Schlafly took on the Equal Rights Amendment, beginning a grassroots anti-ERA effort that eventually led to its defeat. [James] Dobson says Schlafly “almost single-handedly” defeated the amendment.
In the process, she became the subject of scorn by feminists and liberals. She was spit upon, took a public pie in the face. Feminist Betty Friedan once told her, “I’d like to burn you at the stake.” She was vilified in a 1970s “Doonesbury” cartoon.
“That gave me more status with my children than anything I’ve ever done,” Schlafly said, laughing.
In 1976, at age 51, Schlafly was fighting the ERA, writing an 832-page book about Henry Kissinger and raising six children when she entered law school. She graduated 27th out of a class of 204.
Baldly dissembling, Coulter says that this Tribune piece was “preposterously demeaning” to Schlafly. But then, three pages earlier, she told readers that “[t]here is certainly not the remotest possibility that the mainstream media will ever breathe a word of [Schlafly’s] extraordinary accomplishments.” Note to Maslin: If you don’t check all of Coulter’s “research,” she’ll mislead you time after time.
Other footnoted claims about Schlafly are highly bogus. And one more point, kids—Coulter is cagy! According to a NEXIS search, the Washington Times has never reviewed any of Schlafly’s books, either.
IT HAD US FUMING, TOO: Just for a bit of comic relief, here’s another of Coulter’s complaints:
COULTER (page 40): [According to the mainstream media], Phyllis Schlafly never comes up with a witty or tart reply. She “fumes” (Newsweek) or “opens her mouth” (New York Times) or “snaps” (Newsweek).
Admittedly, Coulter’s charges here are odd. But a problem looms in her research, too. Footnotes bolster each Newsweek quote. But did the New York Times really say that Phyllis Schlafly “opens her mouth?” Coulter offers no citation, and a diligent search reveals no such statement. According to NEXIS, there are thirteen cites in the NYT archive for the entry “Schlafly AND mouth.” But in none of these articles did the New York Times ever claim that she actually opens it. Our judgment? Coulter has made a troubling charge. It’s time to bring forward the evidence.
By the way, when did Newsweek say that Schlalfy “snapped” a reply? The cite is twenty-three years old. Here’s the offending passage:
NEWSWEEK (4/30/79): The changes [in state divorce codes] can exacerbate the plight of older women. “We now have a whole new class of impoverished women not equipped to go into the work force,” snaps Schlafly. Chicago lawyer Joseph DuCanto, president of the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers, agrees. “It’s an illusion,” DuCanto contends. “A court says, ‘Get out there, lady, and hustle.’ You go to Marshall Field’s and talk to women clerks. One of two is divorced, middle class and has to get and work, and that’s the only work they can do.”
It’s hard to know what Newsweek did wrong. Its writers agreed with Schlafly’s assessment. But Coulter has a good ear for insults, and she traveled two decades to find one.
INCOMPARABLE FAIRNESS: None of this denies the obvious. A serious writer might want to examine the media’s treatment of Phyllis Schlafly, or the media’s approach to a wide range of issues. But Coulter isn’t a serious writer; Coulter is a dissembler and clown. That’s why Christopher Caldwell, a serious conservative, dismissed her book as “political hackwork.” If reviewers would check out her “great deal of research,” they might see just how right Caldwell was.
TOMORROW: Coulter’s last page? It’s just made up also.
-
CAR WRECK: Some of you think we’re carefully picking our topics when we write about Slander. Sorry. We fact-checked pages one and two because that’s where a book begins (TDH, 7/11). We checked the Katie Couric flap because it became a big flap. We fact-checked Coulter’s section on Schlafly due to Maslin’s review in the Times. But frankly, we haven’t checked any part of this book without encountering instant problems. We’d be surprised if there’s any part of this book where basic “facts” haven’t just been made up.
So yesterday, we got a grand idea. We fact-checked Coulter’s final page—and you can, of course, guess what happened.
Coulter closes with a screed against the New York Times. “[L]iberals have absolutely no contact with the society they decry from their Park Avenue redoubts,” she stupidly fumes. Then, her penultimate paragraph:
COULTER (page 205): The day after seven-time NASCAR Winston Cup champion Dale Earnhardt died in a race at the Daytona 500, almost every newspaper in America carried the story on the front page. Stock-car racing had been the nation’s fastest-growing sport for a decade, and NASCAR the second-most-watched sport behind the NFL. More Americans recognize the name Dale Earnhardt than, say, Maureen Dowd. (Manhattan liberals are dumbly blinking at that last sentence.) It took the New York Times two days to deem Earnhardt’s name sufficiently important to mention it on the first page. Demonstrating the left’s renowned populist touch, the article began, “His death brought a silence to the Wal-Mart.” The Times went on to report that in vast swaths of the country people watch stock-car racing. Tacky people were mourning Dale Earnhardt all over the South!
Typical, nasty, ugly, mean stuff. For the record, Earnhardt died on Sunday, February 18, 2001. And Coulter is right about one thing. The next day, February 19, “almost every newspaper in America carried the story on the front page.”
Coulter is right about something else, too—the New York Times piece to which she refers appeared on February 21. It was written by major star Rick Bragg, a down-home boy from the South. (When Bragg won a Pulitzer in 1996, the Times notice said, “Rick Bragg, 36, a native of Piedmont, Ala., has long said his life’s ambition was to write about the South.”) On this occasion, Bragg was writing from Earnhardt’s hometown; his piece began in the local Wal-Mart because, on the day of the NASCAR crash, residents bought every last bit of the store’s Earnhardt memorabilia. As Bragg explained what happened next, the tone of his piece became clear:
BRAGG (page one, 2/21/01): Today, it was clear what had become of some of it all: People had written their love on shirts and toys, and hung or propped them on a fence outside the offices of Dale Earnhardt Inc., one of the fanciest buildings in town. By morning, the makeshift memorial stretched 40 yards, and cars lined the country road.
“You were God to me,” a mourner scribbled on a card. Another wrote, “My boyfriend’s daddy loved you dearly.”
To the world outside Mooresville and the other little towns around this red-clay corner of North Carolina, Dale Earnhardt might have been racing’s biggest superstar, a walking corporation who won millions in prizes and millions more through smart marketing of his fame. He may have been the force behind the sport’s rise to nationwide popularity, after greats like Richard Petty had faded from victory lane.
But before he was “theirs,” as people here like to say, he was “ours.”
Bragg is hardly a foppish “northeast liberal.” But what did Coulter tell her readers? According to Coulter, Bragg had said that “tacky people were mourning Dale Earnhardt all over the South.” Her nasty comment reveals the sick heart which informs her rank, bile-induced volume.
But forget about the tone of Bragg’s piece; Coulter made a stronger point in that penultimate paragraph. She complained about the way the Times had supposedly ignored Earnhardt’s death altogether. Everyone else treated Earnhardt’s death as a page one story the day it occurred. Coulter’s question: Why, oh why, did the great New York Times wait two more days to put Dale on its cover?
We suspect you know the answer to that; Coulter was inventing. (Again!) In fact, the Times did run the story of Earnhardt’s death on its front page on Monday, February 19. (NEXIS makes this perfectly clear. Which part of “Page 1” doesn’t Coulter understand?) The headline might have provided a clue: “Stock Car Star Killed on Last Lap of Daytona 500.” The piece was written by Robert Lipsyte. Here’s how the Timesman began:
LIPSYTE (page one, 2/19/01): Stock car racing’s greatest current star and one of its most popular and celebrated figures, Dale Earnhardt, crashed and was killed today after he made a characteristically bold lunge for better position on the last turn of the last lap of the sport’s premier event, the Daytona 500.
Lipsyte discussed the crash itself; recent deaths to other drivers; safety devices that had been proposed; and Earnhardt’s role as king of the track. Like Bragg, the Timesman captured the awe in which Earnhardt was held:
LIPSYTE: [NASCAR president Mike] Helton had begun the day by announcing to a drivers’ meeting that because of its new television contract with Fox and NBC, Nascar had finally achieved “absolute professional status.”
At that meeting…Earnhardt sat in the front row, amiably shaking hands with a parade of corporate executives in suits who seemed thrilled to touch him.
The feeling cut across all classes. As he moved through the garage area surrounded by the guests, sponsors and clients of other racing teams, a man with a videocamera reached out and screamed, “I almost touched God.” No one laughed at him.
Of course, Coulter didn’t demean the tone of Lipsyte’s work. Instead, she simply lied about it, saying it didn’t exist. Coulter wanted to close with a bang. She wished Lipsyte out of existence.
What, oh what, are we to do with someone who dissembles like Coulter? Again, we’re quoting the next-to-last paragraph in her whole book. As usual, she builds a screed around an invented fact—one designed to demean those she hates. And just how nasty is Coulter’s conclusion? She draws an ugly conclusion indeed. “Except for occasional forays to the Wal-Mart,” she says, “liberals do not know any conservatives.” But conservatives “already know” liberals, she says. Conservatives know liberals as “savagely cruel bigots who hate America and lie for sport.”
Incredibly, that is Coulter’s final phrase. It closes her strange, disturbed book.
Amazing, isn’t it? Coulter—having just lied through her teeth about the Times—closes with a nasty rant attacking “liberals” for lying! The patent disturbance informing this book is thus put on its fullest display. Because no one else—of the left, right or center—lies and dissembles like Coulter. Our question: Why do TV producers and book reviewers and bloggers seem to think that this is OK? The entire establishment puts up with Ann Coulter. We ask our same question: Why is that?
YES, THAT IS WHAT WE SAID: Yes, that’s just what we said. The New York Times put Earnhardt’s death on its front page twice—on February 19 and 21. (The Washington Times put it there twice, too—on February 19 and 26.) But Coulter needed a closing riff. So she did her main thing. She dissembled.
-
FATHER COUGHLIN HAD A LIVELY STYLE, TOO: There are many ways to be cast as the chump when you look up an Ann Coulter footnote. Sometimes, as on her book’s final page, her stated fact is utterly false (TDH, 7/23). Sometimes, as on her book’s page two, she has grossly misstated an interview session (7/11). Sometimes you end up with Muppet reviews (7/22). Sometimes she says that Phyllis Schlafly was “preposterously demeaned,” and the article she cites is a puff piece (7/22).
Yep, there’s a whole lot of chump change in Ann Coulter’s book. But the factual “errors” which litter this book are only one part of the problem. Perhaps as striking as the factual “errors” are the conclusions she draws from her “facts.” On her final page, Coulter baldly misstates a basic fact, saying that the New York Times kissed off the death of Dale Earnhardt. But even if the Times had put Earnhardt on page twenty-three, how in the world would that lead a sane person to a cuckoo-land statement like this one?
COULTER (page 205): Except for occasional exotic safaris to the Wal-Mart or forays into enemy territory, liberals do not know any conservatives. It makes it easier to demonize them that way. It’s well and good for Andrew Sullivan to talk about a “truce.” But conservatives aren’t the ones who need to be jolted into the discovery that the “bogeymen” of their imagination are “not quite as terrifying as they thought.” Conservatives already know that people they disagree with politically can be “charming.” Also savagely cruel bigots who hate ordinary Americans and lie for sport.
Coulter, of course, has just lied in our faces, misstating the NYT’s coverage of Earnhardt. But even if the Times hadn’t put his death on page one, how in the world would that lead to the thought that “liberals” are “savagely cruel bigots who hate ordinary Americans?” Coulter, of course, takes 27 bucks from those same normal people, then lies in their faces on page after page. But who could get from Coulter’s “fact” to the nasty, odd judgment she offers?
But Coulter’s book is full of such statements—sweeping expressions of typological thinking rarely seen in the last fifty years. Here, for example, is what she writes on her penultimate page, 204:
COULTER (page 204): This isn’t merely to say that liberals have near-exclusive control over all major sources of information in this country, though that is true. Nor is the point that liberals are narrow-minded and parochial, incapable of seeing the other fellow’s point of view, though that is also true. And it’s not that, as a consequence, liberals impute inhumanity to their political opponents and are unfathomably hateful and vicious. That’s true, too.
Such demonistic images—and such bizarre, sweeping judgments—drive this book from beginning to end. Here is an early example:
COULTER (page 6): Liberals hate America, they hate “flag-wavers,” they hate abortion opponents, they hate all religions except Islam (post 9/11). Even Islamic terrorists don’t hate America like liberals do. They don’t have that much energy. If they had that much energy, they’d have indoor plumbing by now.
This produced the best question Coulter has yet been asked in her interview sessions on Slander. On Hardball, Mike Barnicle read that page 6 quote, and then posed a sane person’s question:
BARNICLE: Ann, I love you. You’re never boring, and I understand the point that you’re trying to make in this book, but aren’t you afraid—and I know you’re going to say that it’s, you know, a vast generalization, the quote I just read from—but aren’t you afraid that stuff like that makes you and your argument sound like a complete nut case?
Ann complained about Mike’s rude language. But Barnicle amplified what he had said. Go ahead and enjoy a good laugh at Coulter’s defense of her work:
BARNICLE: Well, I asked you if you didn’t think that such a gross generalization—because you couldn’t believe what you just wrote, what I just read. You couldn’t believe it.
COULTER: I think I write in a colorful style.
BARNICLE: But do you believe it?
COULTER: I think I back everything up.
BARNICLE: But do you believe that—do you believe that liberals hate America and the flag? Do you believe that?
COULTER: Yes. In fact, I have documented it and written columns about it. They hate it much more than I had imagined.
BARNICLE: What about Bob Kerrey? What about Bob Kerrey? He’s a liberal. Does he hate the flag? Does he hate the flag?
COULTER: The anecdotal evidence is just, is just preposterous in this regard. I have footnotes. I do back this up. I have quotes in the book.
Coulter has footnotes! Mordant chuckles bounced off the walls of the HOWLER’ s incomparable headquarters. Continuing, Coulter said that she has “a lively style.” But doggone if Barnicle didn’t persist—and in the process, he made an odd statement. “You do have a lively style,” he said. “I would encourage people to read it. I read you all the time. You’re not boring.”
Is Coulter a “nut case?” We don’t do that work. But her book is full of a kind of thinking not seen in our discourse in many years. She makes absurdly sweeping, nasty assertions; as Barnicle implies, no sane person could think they were true. But “I would encourage people to read it,” Mike said. So we persist with our question: Why is that?
-
And why don’t we read about the “atheist left?” Because the group doesn’t exist.
Excuse me?!
I read about half that wall o' text, and it contained enough insults of various conservative figures to fully qualify as hypocracy. Did it contain some fact? Yes, but it was unintentional proof of much of what Coulter discusses about the liberal press.
Ironic, huh?
-
Geez, where the heck is Hortland? :confused:
I hope he hasn't any tragic bunjee jumping accidents. :(
-
Originally posted by Montezuma
Coulter is a crackpot, a clown—and a balls-out dissembler. Her procedures are an insult to the American public interest. And so we have a simple question for lazy O’Reilly and worthless Kaus. Nobody made you host a TV show. Nobody forced you to go on the web. But boys, are you here to perform your actual duties? Or are you really just here to f*ck around?
Doesn't this quote make her point? When well thought out rebuttal is unavailable, call her a crackpot, call him lazy, maybe even worthless.
Perhaps it is time for the liberal discourse to have some back bone instead of schoolyard neener neener.
-
What they should ask her is if she still thinks the United States Airforce is Natzo like she said on the O'Railly factor on June 12th '99...
On national television calling the AF natizo. Wow!
Even the guy sitting next to her, Dick Morris had to tell her to cool it.
-
Yeah, well you guys seem to be forgetting that she said, "Neener neener neener.", first!
Let me guess, that somehow must be the liberals fault,
-
Say what you want about Ann, but you know what? (doing Robert DeNiro) She's got a GREAT ASS!!!!!
-
Ann Coulter? I'd give her a liberal serving of man chowder.
Yes, the pun is intended.
-
Hey, she isn't anything more than a talking head that spouts her agenda, same as anyone on any side. The amusing thing is watching the vitriolic response from the other side, calling her vitriolic...
-
Say what you want about Ann, but you know what? (doing Robert DeNiro) She's got a GREAT ASS!!!!!
that would be Al Pacino...:cool:
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
Doesn't this quote make her point? When well thought out rebuttal is unavailable, call her a crackpot, call him lazy, maybe even worthless.
Perhaps it is time for the liberal discourse to have some back bone instead of schoolyard neener neener.
Obviously you didn't read the article. Here is a little taste you might have missed:
COULTER (page 1): For his evident belief in a higher being, DeLay is compared to savage murderers and genocidal lunatics on the pages of the New York Times. (“History teaches that when religion is injected into politics—the Crusades, Henry VIII, Salem, Father Coughlin, Hitler, Kosovo—disaster follows.”)
As usual, Coulter is baldly deceiving her readers. Because we’re familiar with the lady’s bad problem, we looked up that quote from the New York Times. It comes from a column by Maureen Dowd, “The God Squad,” written on June 20, 1999.
In fairness, Dowd does spend five paragraphs on DeLay. She slams him for killing gun control legislation after the Columbine shootings. She criticizes him for statements he made at a rally of ministers. “This is the season of cheap virtue,” Dowd writes. “Politicians are rushing to take God’s name in vain.”
But that’s the end of the day for DeLay. Guess which “politicians” she’s directly discussing by the time she gets to that turrible quote? She isn’t discussing DeLay any more. She’s discussing George Bush—and Al Gore:
= backbone.
-
Most people hate their reflections in the mirror. Ann Coulter just holds up the mirror.
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
Most people hate their reflections in the mirror. Ann Coulter just holds up the mirror.
Another blind follower.
She holds up the mirror but its one of those funhouse mirrors that distorts the truth and then she puts little mustaches on the faces just for fun. She's a liar, plain and simple.
-
MT-
As I said, the writer makes some solid statements, then slides right down the path of insult- just as Coulter accuses. Did you miss that? ;)
BTW, I love the "Atheist Left" comment... "it doesn't exist". LOL! Spin, baby...
-
Yeah he does go a little overboard Kieran, however,
If he proves that she is a liar, then calls her a liar, I would hardly call that sliding down the path of insults.
-
What did Bill O'Reilly or Kaus have to do with the attack on Coulter? See how nicely they all get balled up together? Not that I am defending anyone really, but isn't this like lumping Paul Begala or James Carville up with any liberal spokesman?
I believe Coulter is guilty of generalizations, and also believe her book panders to the ultra-conservative mindset. That doesn't excuse rebuttals that do the same, of course, especially if those rebuttals are based on scorn for the nature of Coulter's work. Further, I couldn't care less for the rebuttals either, but I cannot help but see the parallel in the continuing debate between Hortlund vs. et al- Hortlund holds up a piece, calling it the Holy Grail. Et al rebut, and a member holds an equally flawed piece up and calls it the Holy Grail. Sprinkle in a liberal dose (pun intended) of character assassination and viscious personal attack, of course. :D
-
I cannot argue that there is no invective or generalization in the article. What I did see was about 50% of the article was factual statements supporting the idea that Coulter was a least stretching the truth as well as outright lieing. Coulter's article posted by Hortlund was directly quoted in many places and shown to be wrong... such as:
Coulter's contention that Delay was compared to Hitler due to his religious views... The actual quote used by Coulter was from a NYT editorial that was specifically talking about GWB and AL GORE!
Coulter's quote of Katie Couric calling Reagan an "Airhead".... Was (through the transcript of the broadcast) shown to be Couric quoting the authorized biographer of Reagan!
It seems obvious to me that Coulter has stepped over the line and has been caught red handed.
-
Yup, totally agree with that.
-
Hey Midnit Target, Yes I did read it, and here'e a larger quote from it
"Coulter is a crackpot, a clown—and a balls-out dissembler. Her procedures are an insult to the American public interest. And so we have a simple question for lazy O’Reilly and worthless Kaus. Nobody made you host a TV show. Nobody forced you to go on the web. But boys, are you here to perform your actual duties? Or are you really just here to f*ck around?
SNEAK PREVIEW: Did Couric call Reagan an “airhead?” (No.) Did she attribute that claim to biographer Edmund Morris? (Yes.) As you probably know, Coulter is currently riding this topic as she angrily tours the country. It’s the topic O’Reilly snored through last night. Kaus pretended to review this same topic."
In those two paragraphs, the author used schoolyard namecalling tactics. That is what I was refering to. And Coulter did attribute the Airhead statement to the Today show quoting an author who was to be a guest on the show. But they were so enamored with the quote that they opened the show with it for several days.
It is the slant that she and CBS newsman Bernard Goldberg were referring to in their respective books.
And Bernard Goldberg is an avowed liberal...
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
Hey Midnit Target, Yes I did read it, and here'e a larger quote from it
In those two paragraphs, the author used schoolyard namecalling tactics.
Dude, you just called Target a Midnit. :eek:
-
What the hell is a midnit?
HM, you have gone to a great deal of trouble to show that the article is slanted against Coulter...... duh!
What you seem to have ignored are all of the inaccuracies cited in the article, and that they all add up to the fact that Coulter is a lieing sac-O-crap who is using the same invective she so heartily abhores to sell people like you a book. Go buy it. Maybe she'll write another so we can make fun of that one too.
-
So... is there or is there not an "Atheist Left". ;)
And... what is the proper context of Dowd's observation and comparisons of Bush Jr. and Al Gore to Hitler? Was it based on religion, the use of religion, or what? ;)
-
And why do they never talk about the "athiest right" or "religous left" for that matter.
Coulter is a lying, hypocritical twit, probably trying to become famous and make a buck.
Reviewer guy is just a hypocritical twit, probably trying to become famous and make a buck.
The guy who reviewed the review of the reviewer guy, needs to get out of the house.
Maybe we should think about why the fek, we give a watermelon what these people think.
-
Are there "atheist leftists"? Yes of course. Do they exist as a political entity just like the Christian Right? No way. You and I can both think of many Politically motivated groups who base their membership and beliefs on those of the Christian Right. The Christian Coalition for one. Can you name an "atheist left" group that limits its beliefs to those of the atheist left?
There may be many left wing groups who will happily accept atheist members, but they will also accept members of all religious faiths.
And please don't throw in the American Atheist Party or other minor players, and I won't mention the KKK. You and I both know that those fringe groups are not what we are discussing.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Can you name an "atheist left" group that limits its beliefs to those of the atheist left?
There may be many left wing groups who will happily accept atheist members, but they will also accept members of all religious faiths.
And please don't throw in the American Atheist Party or other minor players, and I won't mention the KKK. You and I both know that those fringe groups are not what we are discussing.
How about the commies?
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
How about the commies?
Their ok, but I don't think they have the pitching to go the distance.
:p
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Their ok, but I don't think they have the pitching to go the distance.
:p
Aren't we commies?
-
sorry about the midnit... mea culpa mea culpa...
is it target or tahgut?
Still think you gatta lighten up and see the nastyness of the left as well.
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
sorry about the midnit... mea culpa mea culpa...
is it target or tahgut?
Still think you gatta lighten up and see the nastyness of the left as well.
LOL, I was commenting on Thrawn's post, no sweat on the Midnit. Unless you are comparing me to those SOB Knigits in AH. Then we'll have to throw down!! ;)
Both extremes can be nasty, agreed.
In game ID is Tahgut, would be Target, but that was taken. Tahgut is an ancestor's name, from an historically documented and accurate story of our squad. :cool:
-
Ok, you've both answered the first question satisfactorily. How about the second? ;)
Thrawn, FWIW, I don't really much care what any of the talking heads say, at least in terms of accepting it without processing it. IMHO most people slant one way or another, the trick is to glean the truth from what is said and filter out the rest.
-
"she's alot more pretty than that Janet Reno!"
Hell! I'M a lot more pretty than Janet Reno.
-
Originally posted by Kieran
So... is there or is there not an "Atheist Left". ;)
And... what is the proper context of Dowd's observation and comparisons of Bush Jr. and Al Gore to Hitler? Was it based on religion, the use of religion, or what? ;)
Dowd's comparison of GWB & Al Gore to Hitler (in terms of inviting religion into politics) is not in question. The point of the article was that Coulter used a quote about Al Gore and GWB to make a point about the left's views on Tom Delay! It was Coulter's disingenuous use of quotes to make her point that the author of the review was showing.
-
I am talking about MY point... that indeed there are those that view people of religion in the same context as Hitler. It's splitting hairs to say that just because the attack was directed at two different individuals that the feeling doesn't exist, correct?
Yes, Coulter was irresponsible. I am talking about a concept that is nonetheless valid.
-
Oh, OK.
I have thought about this and you have a point. People on both sides of the issue, especially the extreme sides tend to go for the jugular. Using Hitler as an example of the dangers inherent in mixing politics with religion is admittedly extreme. This doesn't mean that mixing religion and politics is OK, it definitely is not.
Using Hitler to attack conservatives is as bad as using the "Hate America" argument against liberals.
-
Geez, and Hitler hated America. I wonder what the means for conservatism and liberalism?? :confused:
-
Maybe he could pitch for the commies. :eek:
-
LOL!!:D
Okay, I'm done being a wiseass for today.
-
MT-
See? We are in agreement more often than not! :D
-
Originally posted by Kieran
MT-
See? We are in agreement more often than not! :D
Shhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh
I have an image to protect. :D
-
Al Pacino said that? Doh....
-
Sandman? Why don't you tell us what you think and spare us the hyperlinks?
I know what I think..... and why I think it. I don't need to haul up someone else's thoughts. I have one's on my own.
Very lame.......
-
Did Ann Colter and Al Pacino ever date?
-
Originally posted by Elfenwolf
Did Ann Colter and Al Pacino ever date?
Al: "You want to go to war!?"
Ann: "YES! YES! Give it to me! Invade!"
Al: "Say hello to my little friend..."
-
Montezuma, I congratulate you on your ability to cut and paste. Next time perhaps we will get to see some original thoughts of your own too? Or is that too much to ask?
You also might want to check up on your sources in the future.
The Daily Howler, or "the unofficial arm of the Gore presidential campaign." Is a creation by "online watchdog" Bob Somerby. Somerby shared a dorm room at Harvard University with Al Gore and actor Tommy Lee Jones. He taught the fifth grade in Baltimore public schools for 13 years before becoming a stand-up comedian in 1981. He also began writing free-lance commentaries for the Baltimore Sun, occasionally in defense of his old Harvard roommate. Somerby launched the Daily Howler in early 1998 after the Sun rejected a commentary criticizing media coverage of President Clinton's political supporters staying overnight in the Lincoln Bedroom at the White House.
Now there's a pillar of unbiased truth!!
I'm not gonna go into every remark he made on Coulters book. That would take all week. Let me just point out that he argues in a way that is generally not thought of as correct. Very often he uses phrases like "The implication is clear", he then makes his own interpretation, and then he proceeds to argue against his own interpretation. Lets just say that that might work on a standup comedy scene, but generally, more is expected when you are attempting to make a serious point.
Did Couric call Reagan an “airhead”?
Decide for yourself. According to the stand up comedian, this (among other things) proves that Coulter is "a crackpot, a clown—and a balls-out dissembler" and that "her procedures are an insult to the American public interest."
"Good morning. The Gipper was an airhead! That’s one of the conclusions of a new biography of Ronald Reagan that’s drawing a tremendous amount of interest and attention today, Monday, September 27, 1999." (Couric, Introduction to show.)
The Today Show opens, three days in a row with the announcement, Ronald Reagan was an airhead, that's the conclusion of this new book by Edmond Morris.
When Edmond Morris came on for that interview he described that as a grossly unfair characterization of his point. It was a single quote from the beginning of the book and the entire course of the rest of his book was contradicting that. So when the author himself was interviewed about this, and he says that it was a grossly unfair characterization, whose characterization was it? It wasn't Edmond Morris.
On the Christian right:
Someone seems to be missing the point...
It's more than the religious right is misrepresented. It's the idea that it's this Orwellian totemic symbol for people to hate, I mean you try to figure out what the religious right is, it ultimately comes down either to one man, Pat Robertson, or anyone who believes in a higher being and wants his taxes cut. So you're either talking about half of America or one man, and still this is used is an example to frighten Americans. The religious right is presumed to be self-evidently fanatical, intolerant, and so much more. For example, that speech in which Couric blamed the dragging death of James Byrd on the intolerance created by evangelical Christians.
-
Steve, where u been?
We've already decided that Ann is a lieing sac-o-crap and it doesn't matter which stand-up comic does the honors of pointing that out.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Steve, where u been?
We've already decided that Ann is a lieing sac-o-crap and it doesn't matter which stand-up comic does the honors of pointing that out.
Ah, you know the old "boy meets girl, girl falls in love with boy, boy only wants to have sex, girl gets really pissed off when she realizes that, girl tells all her friends about evil boy, boy needs to move to another town if he ever wants to talk to a girl again"-story. (nah, just kidding, been on vacation)
Yes, I have been reading this thread most of the day (that is a BIG wall of text that montezuma dude posted).
And I regret to inform you all that not only is Ann Coulter telling the truth, she is also a rich gorgeous girl with fine teeth. While all of you liberal types are not only horribly wrong, your mother was a hamster and your father smelled of elderberry.
so there...
-
Sounds like you had a good vacation
.
And BTW, concentrate on the Roeper article. I'm pretty sure he isn't a stand up comic. :rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
Montezuma, I congratulate you on your ability to cut and paste. Next time perhaps we will get to see some original thoughts of your own too? Or is that too much to ask?
You also might want to check up on your sources in the future.
My 'original thoughts' on her were in a previous thread. If you knew anything about America, you would realize that painting Katie Couric as some kind of left wing extremist is a joke.
It doesn't matter who wrote the article or that it was mean. What matters is that the article clearly documents that Ann lied in her book. I could obtain a copy of her book and easily demolish her bad reasearch with Lexis/Nexis, but why bother when others have already done so?
There are serious and intelligent conservative commentators in America, but she is not one of them.
-
Originally posted by Montezuma
If you knew anything about America, you would realize that painting Katie Couric as some kind of left wing extremist is a joke.
Oh, so Katie Couric is now a main-stream, common sense, middle of the road objective view, huh?
Abolish the public education, or we'll become a nation of ignorant morons.
-
Originally posted by mietla
Oh, so Katie Couric is now a main-stream, common sense, middle of the road objective view, huh?
Abolish the public education, or we'll become a nation of ignorant morons.
No one said she was objective. Just that she is hardly left-wing.
And Coulter flat out LIED about her.
On p. 51 she (Coulter) writes, "[F]or the media to . . . call you an 'airhead' [Katie Couric on Ronald Reagan]--well, that makes strong men tremble and weak men liberals."
Except Couric never actually called Reagan an airhead. On p. 133 of her own book, Coulter writes that what Couric said was: "The Gipper was an airhead. That's one of the new conclusions of a new biography of Ronald Reagan that's drawing a tremendous amount of interest and fire today." (The book's author, Edmund Morris, had said his first impression was that Reagan was "an apparent airhead.")
So for Coulter to write that Couric was the one labeling Reagan an airhead, would be, let's see, what's the word? Oh yeah. A lie.
From the Roeper article.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
From the Roeper article.
Uh...did you actually READ my reply to that?
Couric said this:
"Good morning. The Gipper was an airhead! That’s one of the conclusions of a new biography of Ronald Reagan that’s drawing a tremendous amount of interest and attention today, Monday, September 27, 1999." (Couric, Introduction to show.)
Background facts:
The Today Show opens, three days in a row with the announcement, Ronald Reagan was an airhead, that's the conclusion of this new book by Edmond Morris.
When Edmond Morris came on for that interview he described that as a grossly unfair characterization of his point. It was a single quote from the beginning of the book and the entire course of the rest of his book was contradicting that. So when the author himself was interviewed about this, and he says that it was a grossly unfair characterization, whose characterization was it? It wasn't Edmond Morris.
Ann Coulters own words:
What I said was, which is true, that The Today Show opens, I believe it was three days in a row with the announcement, Ronald Reagan was an airhead, that's the conclusion of this new book by Edmond Morris, when Edmond Morris came on for that interview with you he described that as a grossly unfair characterization of his point.
The question:
Who is responsible for Couric's quote? I mean, she said the words, there is no question about that. Good morning. The Gipper was an airhead! That’s one of the conclusions of a new biography of Ronald Reagan that’s drawing a tremendous amount of interest and attention today The quote is plain wrong, it is a gross, unfair and incorrect statement. Ann Coulter points this out. Now the liberals are gunning for her...using weird weird arguments... Couric didnt say those things (even though she did) because she was only making a (faulty) generalization about the contents of a book, and anyway, she is not to blame, because she only said it once, not three times... You guys are weird.
Now, I dont know whether you liberal guys realize this or not but alot of you guys argue in a very predictable way. It goes something like this: Conservatives are either stupid or scarily weird and therefore you don't have to deal with their ideas, just set them aside. This is a crazy person, it's a Nazi, someone who wants to engage in racism, sexism, homophobia, so don't listen to that person's ideas, take a quote out of context and dismiss that idea.
I know I lose my temper from time to time with you guys. But damn you have earned it. It is so hopelessly frustrating to try to argue with someone that acts like most of you guys do.
For once try to break that pattern. Because right now the First Amendment has been effectively repealed for conservative speech by a censorious, accusatory mob. Truth cannot prevail because whole categories of thought are deemed thought crimes.
-
"Ann Coulter is a beautiful woman", Thats one of the statements made by Steve Hortlund!
Now tell me how it is that you can attribute that quote to me?
Nice try twisting the argument away from the facts again.
-
Yeah, but everyone seems to be forgetting that the Gipper WAS an airhead!!
;)
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
"Ann Coulter is a beautiful woman", Thats one of the statements made by Steve Hortlund!
Now tell me how it is that you can attribute that quote to me?
Nice try twisting the argument away from the facts again.
Is this the answer I'm getting? Seriously? Where am I twisting any argument away from any fact?
Look at how you fall back into the liberal pattern again...
Conservatives are either stupid or scarily weird and therefore you don't have to deal with their ideas, just set them aside. This is a crazy person, it's a Nazi, someone who wants to engage in racism, sexism, homophobia, so don't listen to that person's ideas, take a quote out of context and dismiss that idea.
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
Is this the answer I'm getting? Seriously? Where am I twisting any argument away from any fact?
ROFL Thanks Steve ---> see below for the answer to your question.....
Look at how you fall back into the liberal pattern again...
Conservatives are either stupid or scarily weird and therefore you don't have to deal with their ideas, just set them aside. This is a crazy person, it's a Nazi, someone who wants to engage in racism, sexism, homophobia, so don't listen to that person's ideas, take a quote out of context and dismiss that idea.
Now try really hard to tell us all that I called Ann C. a beautiful woman, because that is exactly what she did to Katie Couric. If you say I called her beautiful I can prove you are lieing, just as Coulter was lieing. It isn't too much of a logical stretch for you after your vacation now is it?
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
Yeah, but everyone seems to be forgetting that the Gipper WAS an airhead!!
;)
Ronald Regan was quoted as saying that the best thing about having Alzheimers was that he met so many new people every day. And c'mon Steve, we all know you think Ann's hot. Methinks Steve's wife is reading his posts over his shoulder... (wink wink)
-
Originally posted by Elfenwolf
Ronald Regan was quoted as saying that the best thing about having Alzheimers was that he met so many new people every day. And c'mon Steve, we all know you think Ann's hot. Methinks Steve's wife is reading his posts over his shoulder... (wink wink)
Steve is divorced you know... and unless she installed some spyware on my comp, she doenst know what Im writing. But yeah, Ann is hot :) and she is right
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Now try really hard to tell us all that I called Ann C. a beautiful woman, because that is exactly what she did to Katie Couric. If you say I called her beautiful I can prove you are lieing, just as Coulter was lieing. It isn't too much of a logical stretch for you after your vacation now is it?
Midnight:
"Ann Coulter is beautiful, this is what Steve Hortlund writes in his new book."
Steve:
"Uh, no, that is not at all what I write in my book. You have just taken one sentence out of context, actually I spend my entire book trying to prove that she is ugly."
So if I did not write it in my book, why did you say that? Who really said that she is beautiful, me or you?
Two options.
Either you do not understand English, and THINK that I wrote that she is beautiful. That makes you... well stupid I guess.
OR you know that I did not write that she is beautiful, but you take a quote out of context to make it appear that I wrote that she is beautiful. That makes you dishonest.
-
Would these groups qualify as atheist leftist organizations?
ACLU
Communists
Just kidding guys! :D
By the way, Thrawn had it right. You people on both sides of the political spectrum who are rabidly arguing the merits of Slander are missing the point entirely. The main purpose of the book was to cover topics so controversial that both conservatives and liberals would be compelled to buy it and read it.
Don't think so? Let me ask one simple question. How many of you arguing about it in this thread bought the book? Montezuma, you quoted a sizeable portion of it in your posts. Did you buy it or borrow it? How about you Midnight Target? And you guys arguing the conservative side?
Coulter will "laught all the way to the bank!"
Regards, Shuckins
-
midnight? I told you to keep all your Coulter-bashing in one thread.
-
Would these groups qualify as atheist leftist organizations?
In my book, yes.
As to the rest of your post, I've already said as much.
-
Kieran,
Pardon me. Didn't mean to steal your thunder. I simply hadn't read all of the posts.
I beg you to please overlook my rudeness.
Please? Please? Oh, Please?
Shuckins:rolleyes:
-
Uhhh... don't know what you mean. I was agreeing with you... I thought you were referring to me with that comment is all...
-
Kieran,
Misunderstood you...Thought you were ticked about my remarks.
Been a long day.:)
Regards, Shuckins