Does anyone listen to Ann Coulter anymore?

[praying]

You know, for railing on the woman about her hatred, there's quite a lot here that have more than their share of it and are dishing it out in spades via vitriol and even a few arguments ad-hitlerium.

She has generated an awful lot of conversation.

I have a simpler more non-hateful way of showing disapproval of Ann Coulter:
Don't read her columns, don't buy her books, don't watch her on TV.

Easy and to the point.

Well the only problem with this is; it leaves those she attacks with no way of refuting her however that does not mean you have to refute her by being like her.

 

[praying]

ad vomitum...

Id that real Latin Uber?

 

[praying]

I swear Uber-- sometimes you just rock!!

and he is so funny too!

 

[SpaceProg]

She has generated an awful lot of conversation.

Yes, but not much more than the equivilent of "I hate her! She's like Hitler and smells of dog poop!"

Granted not everyone has responded in kind, but It seems it's verging that way more and more in this thread. Come on, people... I know you guys are better than that.

Well the only problem with this is; it leaves those she attacks with no way of refuting her however that does not mean you have to refute her by being like her.

Key words being: "that does not mean you have to refute her by being like her"

I'm saying this to the people who're just railing away, spouting vitriol: You think she's evil and hateful? Then refute what she says without being that way yourself, folks.

 

[praying]

Yes, but not much more than the equivilent of "I hate her! She's like Hitler and smells of dog poop!"

Yes there is an element of truth to this, but some of it has been pretty funny.

My opinion of ann is if you met her at a party and didn't know who she was and she began spilling forth her rude abraisive point of view any reasonable person would run not walk to the nearest exit.

 

[SpaceProg]

Yes there is an element of truth to this, but some of it has been pretty funny.

My opinion of ann is if you met her at a party and didn't know who she was and she began spilling forth her rude abraisive point of view any reasonable person would run not walk to the nearest exit.

That would be their right to leave. It's metaphorical of "If you don't like what she has to say, don't read her books, don't read her columns, and don't watch her on TV".

The way it's been getting in here is metaphorical of her being at a party, saying her stuff and then someone else coming up and getting in her face shouting back the same thing at her only reflecting the other's ideology and throwing in a few personal attacks for good measure. Just a shouting match that disrupts the party more than it was before with just her saying what she has to say.

 

[Blemonds]

any reasonable person would run not walk to the nearest exit.

Any reasonable person would see the truth in her viewpoint

 

[praying]

That would be their right to leave. It's metaphorical of "If you don't like what she has to say, don't read her books, don't read her columns, and don't watch her on TV".

The way it's been getting in here is metaphorical of her being at a party, saying her stuff and then someone else coming up and getting in her face shouting back the same thing at her only reflecting the other's ideology and throwing in a few personal attacks for good measure. Just a shouting match that disrupts the party more than it was before with just her saying what she has to say.

Okay let me rephrase that, if you met an ann coulter type at a party you would run not walk to the nearest exit. The difference being she is in the public eye and and many do listen to her and many have there own hateful views verified by the hateful rhetoric she spews.

 

[SpaceProg]

Okay let me rephrase that, if you met an ann coulter type at a party you would run not walk to the nearest exit. The difference being she is in the public eye and and many do listen to her and many have there own hateful views verified by the hateful rhetoric she spews.

So it's been reduced to "She hit me first!" as justification for spewing back the same stuff that a lot of folks here are railing at her for doing?

 

[Grizzly]

Refuting Ann Coulter is way too easy. But lets' begin.

http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh072302.shtml

Here is Ann vilifying her favorite target. the New York Times. On page 205 of her book, ironically called Slander, she writes.

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!


Well, this would be pretty damaging stuff. If it were true.

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.




​

 

[praying]

So it's been reduced to "She hit me first!" as justification for spewing back the same stuff?

No not at all.

 

[Grizzly]

here's some more from Slander

http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh071502.shtml

COULTER (page 134): Another Republican who failed to meet the exacting IQ standards of the media is President George W. Bush. The image of Bush as an “airhead”—as the New York Times nonjudgmentally put it—has been lovingly nurtured by the media.​

Wow! Did the New York Times call Bush an “airhead?” Coulter’s footnote offers two citations. The first is an article by Sam Howe Verhovek on March 12, 2000, right after John McCain dropped his White House campaign. Verhovek’s topic: Where would McCain voters go now that their man was defeated:

VERHOVEK: Bart Ferko, of Oakland Township, Mich., a dance-studio owner, said he had concluded that a real rebel like Mr. McCain could not be elected president. “Obviously, if you’re not part of the network, you’re out,” he said.

Still, if many of these voters express contempt today for both Mr. Gore (“plastic,” “detached,” “a bore” were some of their descriptions) and Mr. Bush (“an airhead,” “out of his depth,” “unqualified”), they also typically said they were likely to vote in November, and to choose one or the other.
​

In the world of Ann Coulter, that’s an example of the New York Times calling Bush an airhead. Her readers, once again, have no way of knowing how thoroughly they’re being misled.





But then, Coulter loves inventing “airhead” insults. Earlier, she makes a similar bogus claim about favorite mark Katie Couric:

COULTER (page 51): Most politicians would rather die face-down than be ridiculed by Katie Couric…[F]or the media to accuse you of being against “progress and enlightenment” (the New York Times on Jesse Helms) or to call you an “airhead” (Katie Couric, on Ronald Reagan)—well, that makes strong men tremble and weak men liberals.​

Wow! Did Katie Couric call Reagan an “airhead?” Sorry, that isn’t true either. Once again, here’s the actual statement by Couric, made on the 9/27/99 Today show:

COURIC: 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.​

Clearly, Couric attributed the “airhead” remark to Edmund Morris, the Reagan biographer. And, as we noted in last Friday’s HOWLER, Couric’s statement this day was run-of-the-mill; it was being made all over the media. In particular, conservatives were making this same comment too—Sean Hannity on Fox, for example:

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.​

Couric and Hannity said the same thing. Neither called Reagan an airhead.



What’s the background to this story, which Coulter is now widely flogging? We’ll take a look at that tomorrow. But on page 51 of Slander, Coulter plainly says that Couric called Reagan an airhead. It isn’t until page 133 that she notes that Couric was actually quoting somebody. And at that point, Coulter offers another misleading account, putting Couric in the wrong once again. When Coulter hears “airhead” (or “Couric”), she flips.

Not that Coulter needs an excuse to engage in her trademark dissembling. No major pundit, of the left, right, or center, dissembles as pathologically as Ann Coulter does. She misleads her readers all through this rank book. Our question: When will pundits get the courage to say so, right on the air?



O’REILLY, A TOTAL NON-FACTOR: Predictably, Coulter has been dissembling about the Couric matter all over cable TV and talk radio. Here she is on last Thursday’s O’Reilly Factor, spinning right in her host’s face:

O’REILLY: Joining us now is Ms. Coulter. I’m getting ahead of myself. I’m so excited about this story now. Couric says that she was quoting somebody else. But you say that she made the [airhead] comment, which is the crux of the debate.

COULTER: Right.
O’REILLY: Who’s right?
COULTER: Well, it’s in my book. And I’m right, of course.
O’REILLY: Well, she says she was quoting someone else. And she backed it up somewhat in—
COULTER: No, I mean that’s—I say that in my book. I don’t say that it came out of nowhere.
​

Take your pick. First Coulter tried saying that Couric did say it. Then, when Bill began to challenge her account, she said she explained the whole thing in her book. Sorry. As noted, Coulter’s “explanation” came 82 pages late, and that “explanation” was bogus as well. More on that hoohah tomorrow.

 

[praying]

Refuting Ann Coulter is way too easy. But lets' begin.

http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh072302.shtml

Here is Ann vilifying her favorite target. the New York Times. On page 205 of her book, ironically called Slander, she writes. ...snip

And that is the fear as expressed by you way back on this thread and I believe Bleesedbethemeek, maybe others but you two are the names that stand out. She writes this stuff and spills it out on the airwaves and people have their own hatreds verified meanwhile they aren't checking to see if what she says is truth.

It has come to be like soupysales put it, that people want Jerry Springer political discussions. Nevermind truth or accuracy or decency, it's who can be the loudest and most abraisive. I think Ann is queen of the Rude and Hateful.

 

[rahma]

Any reasonable person would see the truth in her viewpoint

Oh yes, because if the US invaded all muslim countries, and killed their leaders, muslims worldwide would fall at the feet of the invaders and imbrace christ

 

[praying]

Oh yes, because if the US invaded all muslim countries, and killed their leaders, muslims worldwide would fall at the feet of the invaders and imbrace christ

The key to what I said rahma, of course I know I am preaching to the choir here, is "reasonable"

 

[Blemonds]

Refuting Ann Coulter is way too easy. But lets' begin.

http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh072302.shtml

Here is Ann vilifying her favorite target. the New York Times. On page 205 of her book, ironically called Slander, she writes.

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!​

​

You are aware, I hope, that Ann admitted she erred in this story and had it edited out of the second edition of her book, aren't you?

 

[Blemonds]

here's some more from Slander

http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh071502.shtml

COULTER (page 134): Another Republican who failed to meet the exacting IQ standards of the media is President George W. Bush. The image of Bush as an “airhead”—as the New York Times nonjudgmentally put it—has been lovingly nurtured by the media.​

Wow! Did the New York Times call Bush an “airhead?” Coulter’s footnote offers two citations. The first is an article by Sam Howe Verhovek on March 12, 2000, right after John McCain dropped his White House campaign. Verhovek’s topic: Where would McCain voters go now that their man was defeated:

VERHOVEK: Bart Ferko, of Oakland Township, Mich., a dance-studio owner, said he had concluded that a real rebel like Mr. McCain could not be elected president. “Obviously, if you’re not part of the network, you’re out,” he said.


Still, if many of these voters express contempt today for both Mr. Gore (“plastic,” “detached,” “a bore” were some of their descriptions) and Mr. Bush (“an airhead,” “out of his depth,” “unqualified”), they also typically said they were likely to vote in November, and to choose one or the other.

​

In the world of Ann Coulter, that’s an example of the New York Times calling Bush an airhead. Her readers, once again, have no way of knowing how thoroughly they’re being misled.








But then, Coulter loves inventing “airhead” insults. Earlier, she makes a similar bogus claim about favorite mark Katie Couric:

COULTER (page 51): Most politicians would rather die face-down than be ridiculed by Katie Couric…[F]or the media to accuse you of being against “progress and enlightenment” (the New York Times on Jesse Helms) or to call you an “airhead” (Katie Couric, on Ronald Reagan)—well, that makes strong men tremble and weak men liberals.​

Wow! Did Katie Couric call Reagan an “airhead?” Sorry, that isn’t true either. Once again, here’s the actual statement by Couric, made on the 9/27/99 Today show:

COURIC: 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.​

Clearly, Couric attributed the “airhead” remark to Edmund Morris, the Reagan biographer. And, as we noted in last Friday’s HOWLER, Couric’s statement this day was run-of-the-mill; it was being made all over the media. In particular, conservatives were making this same comment too—Sean Hannity on Fox, for example:

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.​

Couric and Hannity said the same thing. Neither called Reagan an airhead.




What’s the background to this story, which Coulter is now widely flogging? We’ll take a look at that tomorrow. But on page 51 of Slander, Coulter plainly says that Couric called Reagan an airhead. It isn’t until page 133 that she notes that Couric was actually quoting somebody. And at that point, Coulter offers another misleading account, putting Couric in the wrong once again. When Coulter hears “airhead” (or “Couric”), she flips.

Not that Coulter needs an excuse to engage in her trademark dissembling. No major pundit, of the left, right, or center, dissembles as pathologically as Ann Coulter does. She misleads her readers all through this rank book. Our question: When will pundits get the courage to say so, right on the air?





O’REILLY, A TOTAL NON-FACTOR: Predictably, Coulter has been dissembling about the Couric matter all over cable TV and talk radio. Here she is on last Thursday’s O’Reilly Factor, spinning right in her host’s face:

O’REILLY: Joining us now is Ms. Coulter. I’m getting ahead of myself. I’m so excited about this story now. Couric says that she was quoting somebody else. But you say that she made the [airhead] comment, which is the crux of the debate.


COULTER: Right.
O’REILLY: Who’s right?
COULTER: Well, it’s in my book. And I’m right, of course.
O’REILLY: Well, she says she was quoting someone else. And she backed it up somewhat in—
COULTER: No, I mean that’s—I say that in my book. I don’t say that it came out of nowhere.

​

Take your pick. First Coulter tried saying that Couric did say it. Then, when Bill began to challenge her account, she said she explained the whole thing in her book. Sorry. As noted, Coulter’s “explanation” came 82 pages late, and that “explanation” was bogus as well. More on that hoohah tomorrow.

Couric misquoted the author of the book. In an interview with Couric on a later date, the author said

Morris replied: "I agree with every single one of those. It's brutal and grossly unfair. I did not call him an airhead. The quote, as published first in the Washington Post, dropped the word 'apparent' before 'airhead.' What I said in the book that appears plainly on the page is I found him at first, 'an apparent airhead.' And the whole course of the book makes quite obvious that that first impression was wrong."

You can read the interview yourself: and see what Morris had to say about Katie's comment.

Indeed, the author did not call Reagan an airhead, but Couric did, by misquoting him. So Coulter, once again, was right on.

 

[Grizzly]

[/indent]You are aware, I hope, that Ann admitted she erred in this story and had it edited out of the second edition of her book, aren't you?

I was not aware.

 

[Grizzly]

Couric misquoted the author of the book. In an interview with Couric on a later date, the author said

You can read the interview yourself: and see what Morris had to say about Katie's comment.

Indeed, the author did not call Reagan an airhead, but Couric did, by misquoting him. So Coulter, once again, was right on.

Hmmm. Let's follow your logic with an example.

Grizzly: Blemonds is an airhead. Or so says BLESSEDBEMEEK.

Later, we find out that BLESSEDBEMEEK did not say it.

Therefore, Grizzly called Blemonds an airhead.

See how that doesn't work? Even if Couric was wrong, it doesn't mean she called Reagan an airhead. It means she misquoted someone. Can you see the difference?

 

[Grizzly]

But you left out this one. I'll recut and paste.



The image of Bush as an “airhead”—as the New York Times nonjudgmentally put it—has been lovingly nurtured by the media.Wow! Did the New York Times call Bush an “airhead?” Coulter’s footnote offers two citations. The first is an article by Sam Howe Verhovek on March 12, 2000, right after John McCain dropped his White House campaign. Verhovek’s topic: Where would McCain voters go now that their man was defeated:

VERHOVEK: Bart Ferko, of Oakland Township, Mich., a dance-studio owner, said he had concluded that a real rebel like Mr. McCain could not be elected president. “Obviously, if you’re not part of the network, you’re out,” he said.



Still, if many of these voters express contempt today for both Mr. Gore (“plastic,” “detached,” “a bore” were some of their descriptions) and Mr. Bush (“an airhead,” “out of his depth,” “unqualified”), they also typically said they were likely to vote in November, and to choose one or the other.


​

In the world of Ann Coulter, that’s an example of the New York Times calling Bush an airhead. Her readers, once again, have no way of knowing how thoroughly they’re being misled.

Again, Ann is being deceptive.