Ubertroll
June 8, 2006 1:02 AM   Subscribe

Won't somebody call bullshit on Ann Coulter? it is possible to believe that this new level of infamy* is about anything other than book sales.
posted by Hat Maui (170 comments total)
 
*who's she going to attack next? those loafing, attention-whoring wounded soldiers that speak out about their missing limbs?
posted by Hat Maui at 1:02 AM on June 8, 2006


also: should be "is it" with eroteme at sentence end rather than "it is" with full stop.
posted by Hat Maui at 1:04 AM on June 8, 2006


How 'bout we just ignore her?
posted by slater at 1:05 AM on June 8, 2006


great idea. tell that to every major paper and tv station, though.
posted by Hat Maui at 1:06 AM on June 8, 2006


Wow, she is a *HE*. Wait till the christian right finds out about this.
posted by IronLizard at 1:06 AM on June 8, 2006


She's an exploitation-humor comic, from what I've seen. An upscale Stepford Larry The Cable Guy (at least his early 'damn ragheads go home' radio incarnation, before he whitewashed (pun intended) his act).

She's not a very funny comedian, but still. Not worth panty-twisting about, other than as a symptom of the general cultural disease.

Ignoring a comic is probably the best way to pee on their parade. Laughing at them could be confused for laughing with them.

On the other hand, laughing at those who take her seriously might be the best way to dampen her wick, and hasten her wickedwitch melting moment.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 1:25 AM on June 8, 2006


Wasn't that Gukert thing like 4 years ago? She's waaaaaay behind. She should be making fun of Mexicans or something.
posted by mr_roboto at 1:25 AM on June 8, 2006


I had come across this latest verbal diarrhea to spew forth from the mouth of this attention seeking troglodyte earlier today, and my initial thought was "this would make a great Metafilter post."

I decided against it, though, because as Hot Maui implies in his post, this is nothing other than an attempt by this pea brained simpleton to sell books. Her words are well chosen to invoke the kind of visceral outrage she and her publicist know will get millions of left wing bloggers and media pundits to talk about Coulter. In doing so, they either implicitly or inadvertently draw attention to her books. PROFIT!

So when deciding if I should have made this a post here on the Blue, I decided that I wouldn't play her game. I tried to call bullshit on Coulter by refusing to do exactly that which she wants; namely, getting more people to talk about her.

On the surface of it, slater is correct. We should just ignore her. But as much as I have tried, the fact is every time she opens her mouth, roughly one million and one media outlets report on it and by consequence I cannot help but stumble across her latest nonsensical ramblings. It doesn't help when MeFi gives her publicity too. But the simple notion of ignoring her is one that I think we should at least try to pay heed too.

In short; please folks, for the love of god, ignore the troll.
posted by Effigy2000 at 2:15 AM on June 8, 2006


I'm always perplexed by the space Coulter seems to inhabit in US political discourse - I'd have thought she was a shit (if popular), one-note comedian if I didn't keep seeing her interviewed and featured and generally treated as if her opinions on things mattered. It comes across like a black culture magazine seriously interviewing Ali G.

Also, is there any chance the 'man Coulter' hilarity can wind down now? It's as offensive to keep going 'omgz shes a man lol' because she shares a few stereotypical physical traits with MtF transsexuals as it would be to go 'omgz she's a spic haw haw' if she looked latino. I mean, the crazy hi-larious humour of the repubs having 'one of them' in their ranks wouldn't be lost either way, would it?
posted by terpsichoria at 2:26 AM on June 8, 2006


this is nothing other than an attempt by this pea brained simpleton to sell books.

And like that other right wing pea-brains (Rush Limbo, O'Reilly, etc. etc. etc.) she realizes that there is a huge American market selling validation to low-self esteem Republicans. It's the easiest job on the planet. Because they're Republcians, she doesn't have to do research. She doesn't have to be funny or clever or anything. She doesn't even have to write very well.

She's the one laughing. All the way to the bank.
posted by three blind mice at 2:39 AM on June 8, 2006 [1 favorite]


Not worth panty-twisting about,

But what if I want to twist her panties?

other than as a symptom of the general cultural disease.

Oh. Err. Damn.

Also, is there any chance the 'man Coulter' hilarity can wind down now?

Yeah, but that's what makes her so hot. Rrraawr.
posted by loquacious at 2:49 AM on June 8, 2006


Obviously you can't expect republicans outrage over Coulter , they no longer exist or turned lefty. People who still vote republican , I mean come on, are the same who tought Bill Clinton was doing a-ok when with the help of a Rep Congress he all but ended social welfare.

So I think a tactic to reduce her "untought" experience , similar to telling childrens Santa exists only to phuck with their minds, is to imply that her behavior is despicable without ever ever mentioning her..referring to "somebody once said" ..the attention is so distracted from the personality and is focused on the utter absurdity of the claims , yet without the Brand "Name Surname" there is no product to buy and she gets nothing out of the outrage deal.
posted by elpapacito at 3:02 AM on June 8, 2006


Coulter is popular because she's anti-PC: her entire draw is that people get pissed off at what she says. Treat her as a kook instead of a threat and she'll go away. (I hope.)
posted by Tlogmer at 3:10 AM on June 8, 2006


Wow, she is a *HE*.

I still think that Ann Coulter is really Andy Kaufman, playing his best joke ever.
posted by jperkins at 3:52 AM on June 8, 2006 [1 favorite]


I agree with the Coulter-as-troll argument, but I wonder...

Does anyone here actually *know* someone who completely agrees with the things she's saying? I mean, no doubt someone out there agrees with her, just as there's no doubt there are people who still worship Zeus, but how many really? She writes "best sellers," but I can't imagine even republicans accepting what she says.

She's so obnoxious and moronic, only a cartoon character republican could agree with her. So, how many of those do we have in the United States?
posted by JHarris at 4:17 AM on June 8, 2006


Ann Coulter has a new book out!
Thanks for the remind. I'm going to buy that straight away.
posted by seanyboy at 4:31 AM on June 8, 2006


Yesterday was the first time I actually saw footage of her (in her apparently-trademark sleepwear/daywear/eveningwear black thingy) and was surprised at how just this side of totally losing her shit she seems. A cross between kids who really have to pee and the halfnaked guy pushing a cart and calling an invisible opponent a "motherFUCKER!" every three seconds.

Is that her performance style? Did she do a bump too many before cameras rolled? Is she off her meds? What the fuck?

I half expected her head to do a 360 and then inform Matt that his mother, in fact, sucks cocks in Hell.

Ann Coulter, like fellow neoconfundy (from the Spanish for "newly-confused") Pat Robertson (who yesterday informed the press that he'd legpressed 2,000 pounds once thanks to his Age-Defying Protein Shake), is a troll, as I think someone has noted, and an attention whore who talks shit to get column inches. She has a new book out, fer Pete's sake! What's she gonna do? Sell it on its intellectual merits?

The fact that she's some sort of *ghaaaahhh* sex symbol to Republicans makes me shudder in too many ways to relate.
posted by the sobsister at 4:37 AM on June 8, 2006 [2 favorites]


We've all seen it before, but it always bears another reading.

I fucked Ann Coulter in the ass, hard.
posted by PeterMcDermott at 4:41 AM on June 8, 2006 [1 favorite]


I tend to try to ignore her at all costs, but I had to do a double-take when she started the publicity for this book by saying nearly the same thing left-wing cartoonist and columnist Ted Rall wrote in his infamous strip Terror Widows over four years ago.
posted by MegoSteve at 4:43 AM on June 8, 2006


If you want fun, watch Keith Olbermann slice and dice her:

http://movies.crooksandliars.com/Countdow-Coulter-Widows.wmv
posted by tgrundke at 4:45 AM on June 8, 2006


Ann Coulter is a horrid person. For starters, she should try wearing a skirt that isn't all the way up to her ass. She'll do anything to promote herself. And the talking heads on TV should quit aiding and abetting her (I know that will never happen).

That being said and in no way condoning her lambasting of the WTC widows in her ususal outrageous fashion, I have to confess that I have gotten a little tired of having the "WTC families" (whoever they may be) trying to dictate urban development in one of the most highly valued and densely "populated" are of Manhattan. Not that they are soley responsible for the lack of redevelopment at the WTC site.

Five years later, the whole in the ground still sits there (with a few improvements for infrastructure and such). A lot of folks are to blame starting with Governor Pataki who has been pretty disengaged from the process. He is only interested now because he has presidential aspirations.

I think the best thing we could do is to rebuild ASAP -- right on the footprints of the old buildings if need be.
posted by bim at 4:46 AM on June 8, 2006


...one of the most highly valued and densely "populated" AREAS of Manhattan.

I can't type well!
posted by bim at 4:50 AM on June 8, 2006


You all need to read "I fucked Ann Coulter in the ass...hard" - it had me on the floor.
posted by tgrundke at 4:50 AM on June 8, 2006


Shorter Ann Coulter 9/11 widows controversy:

Ann Coulter has a new book out.
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 4:58 AM on June 8, 2006


Does anyone here actually *know* someone who completely agrees with the things she's saying? I mean, no doubt someone out there agrees with her, just as there's no doubt there are people who still worship Zeus, but how many really? She writes "best sellers," but I can't imagine even republicans accepting what she says.


As Glenn Greenwald puts it:

"If people want to argue . . . that Coulter is just some fringe, irrelevant figure whom Republicans detest, then it really is incumbent on them to explain why millions of Bush followers buy her books, why they cheer on her hateful, violence-advocating rants, why she is one of the most featured pro-Bush pundits on Fox, and why she is one of the featured speakers at the most important conservative event of the year."

The conservative event referred to here is the Conservative Political Action Conference. Big event. Cheny, Frist, Gingrich were there. Ann's speech got a lot of applause, especially when she called Muslims ragheads.
posted by barjo at 5:14 AM on June 8, 2006


Add me to the list of people who have lost their respect for the MSM for giving Coulter the attention - and therefore, the credibility - she craves oh so badly.
Thank goodness us internet people aren't as stupid as they.

Here's another link (With HTML!) to the Olbermann vid; the C&L one didn't seem to want to load.
Viva YouTube!
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 5:19 AM on June 8, 2006


And by the way, the tactic of attacking someone by accusing them of unseemly glee at tragedy is purely Republican.
posted by barjo at 5:22 AM on June 8, 2006


I thought her next book was gonna be: "Regret, I'm Starting to Miss My Dick".
posted by wrapper at 5:28 AM on June 8, 2006


Don't scratch it, or the scab will never heal.
posted by Serial Killer Slumber Party at 5:32 AM on June 8, 2006


but I can't imagine even republicans accepting what she says.

You're wrong. Ann Coulter articulates the dark and fallacious heart of American conservativism perfectly.
posted by PinkStainlessTail at 5:42 AM on June 8, 2006


People (from all points on the political spectrum) have been calling "bullshit" on Ann Coulter for years, and her career and earning power have gone nowhere but up.

(She was kicked to the curb by the ultraconservative National Review years ago for, well, being herself, and just the mention of her name typically produces apoplectic responses among leftists.)

Ann is in the outrage business; she makes her living by dependably saying outrageous things, and she's reasonably good on television.

It's more performance art than politics. And it's going to keep working (for her), if history is any guide.
posted by enrevanche at 5:50 AM on June 8, 2006


Ann Coulter articulates the dark and fallacious heart of American conservativism perfectly.

Many, many conservatives disagree strenuously. You can count me, and the editors of the National Review (see above) in that number... I find her act extremely distasteful and extraordinarily stale, but I *am* hip to the fact that it's an act.
posted by enrevanche at 5:52 AM on June 8, 2006


So, how many of those do we have in the United States?

Maybe the people who actually -buy- her gibberish as I don't see anyone poiting a gun at them forcing them to buy her stuff. It is reasonable to hypothize they spend money because they find some value in owning that product or because it "entertains" them somehow , the definition of entertainment tentatively being "something that makes me feel good or better while captivating my attention" .

In a sense she knows that some people "Love to belittle/put-down" and what is more despicable that somebody who is accused of being an hypocrite with moral
This resonate in some people who like to find people even MORE vile then them, even more cheating and hypocrite and irrational. It doesn't matter if the allegations are true/false, they just need to be -possible- not even plausibile.


Ann Coulter articulates the dark and fallacious heart of American conservativism perfectly.

Not really ! She resonates on a deeper level, one doesn't need to be a conservative to find her tought "interesting" even if , you are correct on that, most conservatives may find her somehow appealing
posted by elpapacito at 5:53 AM on June 8, 2006


Flag her and move on.
posted by rollbiz at 6:09 AM on June 8, 2006


Fox News says Ann Coulter Goes Too Far. I believe this may be a sign that the End Times have arrived.
posted by theora55 at 6:09 AM on June 8, 2006


How 'bout we just ignore her?


that might have worked... you know, if she didn't have national coverage on television...

note to all - stupid people with the power to reach millions = weapon of mass stupidity. i fully support the widows of the iraq war if they decide to beat the living shit out of Coulter.
posted by Doorstop at 6:15 AM on June 8, 2006


She's so obnoxious and moronic, only a cartoon character republican could agree with her. So, how many of those do we have in the United States?

Millions.
posted by scratch at 6:16 AM on June 8, 2006


Peter McDermott
Dude, i especially love the line "
‘The Grapes of Wrath, huh?’
‘Yes’ I said, faking composure. ‘It’s fantastic.’
‘It’s a fantastic primer for vacuous proto-Communists everywhere,’ she said dismissively.
"
posted by Doorstop at 6:19 AM on June 8, 2006


Does anyone here actually *know* someone who completely agrees with the things she's saying?

Well, I don't know two people who "completely" agree about anything, but regarding the 9/11 widows, I can't say that she misses the mark by too much.

Bad things happen to people all of the time, but for some reason, we as a nation have decided that the tragedy that has befallen the 9/11 families has entitled them to colossal renumeration and a megaphone that goes to eleven. I think it's absurd, and it's a shame that Coulter's vulgarity obscures the point.
posted by Kwantsar at 6:21 AM on June 8, 2006


Look at her hands.

Look at her Adam's apple.

In your heart, you know it's true.
posted by sonofsamiam at 6:27 AM on June 8, 2006


OK, well then is he allowed to write that he would like to hunt down Ann Coulter and kill her with his bare hands?

(By the way, that's not a task I'd want to have: putting my bare hands on Ann Coulter. Eww.)
posted by pracowity at 6:28 AM on June 8, 2006


Yah. Little Eichmanns, anyone?
posted by fourcheesemac at 6:30 AM on June 8, 2006


Shouldn't the fact that 9/11 led to Iraq etc. be a bigger issue than 9/11 leading to four widows asking for money?
posted by inigo2 at 6:30 AM on June 8, 2006


‘I want you to wreck it.’

That simple statement never fails to reduce me to a quivering, giggling mass of flesh.
posted by ColdChef at 6:39 AM on June 8, 2006


I saw her interview with Matt Lauer the other day, where she talked about the Left's doctrine of infallibility. I think that there is a valid discussion to be had about this, but framing it by discrediting the "911 spouses" as faux-celebrity mass-manipulators was too much (pot, meet kettle).
posted by dobie at 6:43 AM on June 8, 2006


What did Matt Lauer do to get the task of interviewing all the crazies like Cruise and Coulter?
posted by robocop is bleeding at 6:46 AM on June 8, 2006


So this is about the 9/11 widows again? Yeesh, she pulled the same stunt a few years ago; hell, she's been bashing the 9/11 widows since, well, 9/11. Recycling her greatest hits is par for the course for her, but her critics have no excuse for participating in the latest round as if it's some new outrage.
posted by mediareport at 6:51 AM on June 8, 2006


Conservatives enjoy Ann Coulter for one reason, she gets liberals all frothy and agitated. We stop doing that, she loses what little influence she has. Also, People get used to things, so she has to get progressively more outrageous each time. Eventually she's just going to have to cannibalize Hilary Clinton on live TV or something. But truth be told, the best way to neutralize her is to treat her like a five year old yelling pee-pee and poo-poo in the backyard, which is basically what she is.
posted by jonmc at 6:56 AM on June 8, 2006


Her critics are just trying to justify themselves. They play the same pretend jounalism game as her. They're all just selling polemics without offering any actual discussion. At the end of the day they just want to be on TV and sell you there books.
posted by dobie at 6:59 AM on June 8, 2006


Marilyn Manson Now Going Door-To-Door Trying To Shock People

"Look at me, suburban dung," Manson told Wesley. "Does this shock you?"

When Wesley replied no, he said Manson became "petulant." Recalled Wesley: "He started stamping his feet and shaking his fists, saying, 'What do you mean no? Aren't your uptight, puritanical sensibilities offended? Don't you want to censor me so you don't have to confront the ugly truth I represent?' So I say, 'Well, not particularly.' Then, after a long pause, he says, 'Well, screw you, jerk!' and walks off sulking."

That evening, Linda Schmidt was preparing to drive her daughter Alyssa to a Girl Scouts meeting when she found Manson standing on her porch draped in sheep entrails.

"I knew who he was, but I was kind of busy and didn't really have time to chat," Schmidt said. "He just kept standing there staring at me, expecting me to react in some way."

posted by XQUZYPHYR at 7:03 AM on June 8, 2006


Coulter peddles hate--it's not humor, it's not harmless, it's not helpful, etc---and if she were a man, she'd have been banned from most mainstream shows by now. No other hater gets the airtime she does, and no other hater calls for the death of so many so often (i've read she appears on-air more than Pat Robertson even, and he's the runner-up in repeatedly and publically calling for peoples' deaths).
posted by amberglow at 7:04 AM on June 8, 2006


Coulter peddles hate

True, but to paraphrase the great philosopher Dave Mustaine, who's buying? Coulter's true vocation is selling her audience to Bush & the rest of the neo-cons, and with the world situation as it is, she's looking more and more desperate.

Coulter hates you and me? Big whoop. I don't much like her either. Guess we won't be exchanging Christmas cards.
posted by jonmc at 7:11 AM on June 8, 2006


I love it when people claim Coulter's persona is an act and she's a humorist, an argument completely invalidated by the fact that Coulter herself claims not to be doing an act and not to be a humorist, and further invalidated by the fact that she's not funny.
posted by Astro Zombie at 7:13 AM on June 8, 2006


Astro Zombie, I'm sure she's sincere but her delivery is all about the attention seeking and shock-schlock, which along with the fact that she has boobies* is the only reason she gets the airtime she does.

*I'm witholding judgement on Coulter possesing a vagina. Instinct tells me she has something resembling that singing flower from Little Shop Of Horrors down there.
posted by jonmc at 7:16 AM on June 8, 2006


From the Fox piece: Sometimes commentator-types simply pander to their audience — and sometimes the things they say are utterly unchallenging and frankly insulting to that audience, no matter who they are.
posted by stinkycheese at 7:17 AM on June 8, 2006


Yes, Ann Coulter is a troll, but she takes trolling to an art form. She trolls beautifully. There is nobody out there who trolls better than she does. The high notes of trolldom she consistently hits are seven-octaves-above-middle-C impressive.
posted by fugitivefromchaingang at 7:20 AM on June 8, 2006


Just point and laugh. Better than ignoring her, better than shutting her up. Public ridicule is a perfectly good mechanism. We don't use it nearly enough. And, no, that's no act - she really believes the tripe she utters.

What makes me nervous is that, if she's the far right end of the spectrum, she serves a purpose to conservatives - she moves the "moderate center" that much farther to the right every time she opens her mouth. We get used to hearing her mouthing epithets and death threats, and suddenly the more gentle bigotry and aggression practiced by apparently moderate conservatives seem somehow...normal, as if to say "sure, we hate gays and Islam and Mexicans, but we're nowhere near Ann Coulter." She screams about ragheads, they just detain known Islamic followers, and we shrug our shoulders. She screams about fags, they just try to modify the Constitution to "protect the sanctity of marriage", and we just nod when, although it fails, the vote is a virtual friggin' tie in the Senate. She screams about assassinating potential terrorists and bombing countries off the map, they just continue to hold (and torture) perfectly innocent people in an illegal prison system outside the U.S. (so as to ensure we're not breaking the law on U.S. soil) for years while performing targeted strikes that kill insurgents and civilians alike, and we just throw up our hands and say, "well, what can ya do? They're terrorists, after all."

That scares me.
posted by FormlessOne at 7:27 AM on June 8, 2006


sonofsamiam: Look at her hands.

Look at her Adam's apple.

In your heart, you know it's true.


How would it matter if it was true? The Republicans already have lots of people from various minorities on their side.
posted by ArmyOfKittens at 7:28 AM on June 8, 2006


Dobie makes a good point: there is something to be discussed in the left's use of the "doctrine of infallibility", otherwise known as, "focus on the poor families, the downtrodden and bring them out to garner sympathy and support."

Having said that, I don't disagree that these very same people do have a legitimate gripe. As Matt Lauer said in his interview, "aren't these people (the widows, in this case) right in the middle of the war?"

The major problem with someone like Coulter is that she may have some good arguments and issues to discuss - but she wraps these issues in such bigoted, hyper, overblown and ridiculous rhetoric that the message she may be trying to get across is totally lost.

Take for example Cindy Sheehan. I feel bad that she lost a son, I really do. I find it commendable that she has taken a stance against the war. But I was getting irritated hearing about her every day on the news and listening to her talk about the war and the loss of her son. Thousands of others have lost relatives as well. This doesn't mean she's not allowed to speak and this doesn't mean she's not allowed to grieve publicly (unlike what Coulter would say). For me - I take it for what it is: A grieving mother protesting the war. I hear it, synthesize it and move on.

The only people who are making a stink about such items are the talking head pundits like Coulter. For the rest of us, we've moved on...months ago. People like Coulter just rehash these memes for their personal edification. Me, I just ignore it all.
posted by tgrundke at 7:30 AM on June 8, 2006


I don't use this word lightly, and I know it is horribly offensive, but she is a cunt, through and through.
posted by zekinskia at 7:31 AM on June 8, 2006


The so-called Doctrine of Infallability is bullshit, and another great example of how the right loves to accuse the left of enagging in behavior that it, in fact, extraordinarily popular in the right. During the ramp up to this particularly awful war, it was, after all, the right who trotted out the ugliest phrase they have -- un-American -- to shame protestors and critics into silence. The right has relentless used 911 as a bully tool, and then has the audacity to attack widows of 911 and mothers of dead soldiers for having the audacity to speak out? Translated into real English, the Infallability Doctrine becomes "these are people who make me feel bad when I tell them to shut up."
posted by Astro Zombie at 7:35 AM on June 8, 2006


If you're too batshit insane for the National Review, that should have told her something.
posted by amberglow at 7:36 AM on June 8, 2006


I know this marks me as a small, trivial person, but the phrases 'widows of 911' and 'used 911 as a bully tool' strike me as utterly hilarious, because I know you're talking about '9/11,' and the the image of someone dialing 911 as a way of eliding civil liberties is just...OK maybe it's not utterly hilarious. It was when I started writing this comment, before I realized I had no idea how to finish it.

Coulter's an idiot, big deal.
posted by waxbanks at 7:53 AM on June 8, 2006


If you're too batshit insane for the National Review, that should have told her something.

Oh, come on. Why are you implying that the National Review is generally batshit insane? Because it's conservative?
posted by fugitivefromchaingang at 7:57 AM on June 8, 2006


Also, is there any chance the 'man Coulter' hilarity can wind down now?

It's really only funny till she teabags you.
posted by StrasbourgSecaucus at 7:58 AM on June 8, 2006


Also, is there any chance the 'man Coulter' hilarity can wind down now?

Hey, I compared her to a befanged singing plant, not a man.
posted by jonmc at 8:00 AM on June 8, 2006


Feed me Seymour, feed me all night long.
That's right boy! You can do it!
(I sang that part in a small-town community production)
posted by Goofyy at 8:11 AM on June 8, 2006


All these fuckers get what they deserve. Sometimes you just have to be patient.
posted by A189Nut at 8:15 AM on June 8, 2006


Why are you implying that the National Review is generally batshit insane? Because it's conservative?

Dude. Jonah Goldberg.

No one will ever convince me I should take that cretin poseur seriously.
posted by sonofsamiam at 8:16 AM on June 8, 2006


Oooooh, I hate her, I hate her so much! But she really does have amazing hair, truly, it's fabulous. So shiny and soft looking......
posted by msali at 8:16 AM on June 8, 2006


She's got limp-ass bleach blonde barbie hair. Alison Stewart? Now there's a reporter with some nice hair. *sigh*
posted by jonmc at 8:18 AM on June 8, 2006


I should have added:
O, FormlessOne, I have flagged thy post as fantastic.

Scarry, too. And you may want to try some Visene on that lidless eye thing you got going there. Ouch!
posted by Goofyy at 8:24 AM on June 8, 2006



Hey, I compared her to a befanged singing plant, not a man.


The day the befanged singing plants join the Republican party, we might as well all throw in the towel, hand over our civil rights and announce the conservatives have officially won.
posted by terpsichoria at 8:24 AM on June 8, 2006


All this chatter has taken the evil he-bitch's book to number one in sales. The plan comes together.

But Hey! Let's put the the lipstick and ugly black dress of Right Wing Christian Spokesman on her, and let her represent the neocons for who they are.
posted by BillyElmore at 8:35 AM on June 8, 2006


Don't you mean can someone OTHER than Hillary Clinton call bullshit on Coulter? Because OH SNAP! Coulter bitchslapped her all the way into next week.

Not that I like Hillary Clinton much either.

I think we should make them Jell-o wrestle. I think that would solve all of our problems.
posted by grapefruitmoon at 8:43 AM on June 8, 2006


Dude, i especially love the line

I like this bit from the follow-up, Back in Ann Coulter's ass-saddle again:

‘And I’m scrawling something on your ass with a sharpie.’
‘Uhhh..Ohhh..what are you writing?’
‘I’m writing..HILLARY IN 2008!!!’
posted by PeterMcDermott at 8:46 AM on June 8, 2006


I vote for the Andy Kauffman theory. I haven't seen people get so riled since Andy stepped into the ring with Jerry Lawler.
posted by Neologian at 8:59 AM on June 8, 2006


Does anyone here actually *know* someone who completely agrees with the things she's saying?

Yes. And I lived with them. Condolences are welcome.

And, that Fox link? Directly to the right of the words Grrr! Ann Coulter Goes Too Far is a rather large size ad for her book. So.
posted by birdie birdington at 8:59 AM on June 8, 2006


Ann Coulter is living proof that you can never be too thin or too bitch.
posted by pax digita at 9:07 AM on June 8, 2006


I wonder if we should we hold our breath waiting for Russert to confront all Republicans with her statements--like he does to Democrats when a liberal makes a stupid statement?
posted by amberglow at 9:08 AM on June 8, 2006


(and pax wins) : >
posted by amberglow at 9:09 AM on June 8, 2006


"She's a drag queen impersonating a fascist. I don't even begin to believe she actually believes this stuff. It's post-modern performance-art. I think of Coulter in that sense as more at home on the pomo-left than the Christianist right (which is why the joke, ultimately, is on the Republicans who like her). Devoid of sincerity, detached from any value but performance, juggling rhetoric for its own sake, she is Stanley Fish's model student. Half the time, I tend to think that a Hannity or O'Reilly or Malkin actually believes their own rhetoric. With Coulter, I don't believe it for a second. And so her vileness cannot be taken seriously. She is worse than vile. She is just empty."

Andrew Sullivan today...
posted by mania at 9:09 AM on June 8, 2006


Asto Zombie nails it. There is no credibility to this "the left's doctrine of infallibility" bullshit. It is the right wingnuts who use "patriotism" as a "doctrine of infallibility," consistently and egregiously. And they always have. Support the troops means support the war, for example. Criticize the president means you're "un-American," for example.

Speaking on behalf of the poor, the downtrodden, the oppressed, and so forth, is not a claim of infallibility. It is a claim of moral rectitude, yes, and precisely to the extent that righties feel oppressed by the "political correctness" of arguments rooted in a philosophy of social justice for all ("as you do to the least of my creatures, you do unto me," anyone?) is that they are *ashamed* to be speaking on behalf of preserving the privileges and prerogatives of the rich and selfish. When confronted with an obvious argument that gives lie to their claims to be "Christian" or "pro-democracy," they cringe in shame and then blame the messenger for having the gall to speak in the name of the oppressed.

Ann Coulter is an *evil* person. She defends *evil* people. She engages in *evil* tactics of intimidation, slander, and abuse. She has actually called, repeatedly, for mob physical violence against her political opponents. And she exhorts this among people who are entirely inclined to practice mob physical violence, and have repeatedly done so in the past. That is not a "troll" except in the most extended metaphorical sense. I really hope she is stricken with a very painful chronic and debilitating disease, soon. Otherwise, there will be no shutting her up. In the meantime, it is absolutely necessary to speak up and shame and refute her whenever she opens her ugly big mouth.
posted by fourcheesemac at 9:10 AM on June 8, 2006


...and to try to shame the media into not continually giving her a platform from which she spouts her hatred and slime. Matt Lauer might think it's "always fun to have her" on the Today show, but as the segment with Kathy Griffin showed, comedians don't get major facetime with Lauer (and Couric in the past) during a news-oriented section of the show--ever.
posted by amberglow at 9:20 AM on June 8, 2006


As I recall, people 'call bullshit' on her all the time. Even people like Bill O'Reily don't take her seriously, but they just put her on because her domineering ways make their naughty bits tingle in strange ways.
posted by delmoi at 9:20 AM on June 8, 2006


They put her on because she is one of the ones pushing the envelope of mainstream discourse.

Coulter forged the way for Malkin et al, whom people do take seriously.
posted by sonofsamiam at 9:22 AM on June 8, 2006


What does "calling bullshit" accomplish? The more liberals call bullshit on her the more effective she is. She's not a politician who needs to be re-elected. She's an entertainer who wants to sell books. She sells books by getting attention. She gets booked on TV because she's great on TV. She's not morally decent on TV, but last time I checked moral decency doesn't do well in the Nielsens.

All "calling bullshit" accomplishes is feeling superior.
posted by fugitivefromchaingang at 9:25 AM on June 8, 2006


Coulter is the most brilliant satirist of our time. She is hyper-inflating the right to illustrate its ridiculousness.

Please appreciate, you pathetic haters!
posted by ewkpates at 9:28 AM on June 8, 2006


Another irony here is that left-wing cartoonist Ted Rall did a strip a few years ago attacking the mindset of "terror widows" and righties were calling for his head- papers dropped him, Freepers gnashed, etc.... go read FreeRepublic now and the little shits are all ecstatically typing with one hand about how Ann "tells it like it is."

Incidentally, I wrote about this book three months ago, predicting it would be the smash comedy hit of the summer. My exact quote was:
We've discussed the techniques of various pundits before. As I noted the other day, Malkin's is to play the victim of "unhinged" liberal attacks. Coulter's technique is to throw out a wild, massively ridiculous accusation against liberals, and then sit back and rake in the dollars while liberals do all the work writing blog post after blog post debunking an argument she honestly doesn't believe anyway.
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 9:29 AM on June 8, 2006


Five years later, the whole in the ground still sits there (with a few improvements for infrastructure and such).

I think it would be better if we waited 20 years, for people's emotions to cool down rather then building some tacky monstrosity like "Fort Awsome".
posted by delmoi at 9:29 AM on June 8, 2006


and we just nod when, although it fails, the vote is a virtual friggin' tie in the Senate.

OMG IT WAS A VOTE FOR CLOITURE, not "the" vote, and they needed 60 so it wasn't even close to a 'tie'.
posted by delmoi at 9:38 AM on June 8, 2006


Actually, Bill O'Reilly called bullshit on this last night. On the show itself he was more pointed that the website blurb.
posted by beagle at 9:39 AM on June 8, 2006


Is that "Grr" columnist meant to be funny?
posted by emelenjr at 9:39 AM on June 8, 2006


From beagle's link:

No doubt some far left pundits have said far worse things than Ann Coulter will ever say, and the mainstream media often celebrates them. But a No Spin rule is that you don't justify bad behavior by pointing to other bad behavior.

Um, Bill...you just did.
posted by NationalKato at 9:44 AM on June 8, 2006


We need Ann Coulter. We need her to keep doing what she's doing. She's on a trajectory, and we need for her to continue to the end of that trajectory. Conservatives aren't going to have their minds changed by liberals, they're going to have to change their own minds, and that's only going to happen when they start to reject their usual conservative figureheads. And then they'll start to think about why they're doing that, and then start to think a little more. For most people, it'll be a tiny shift back to the middle, but for some... well... it might just be enough to wake them the fuck up from this long nightmare we've all been happening.
posted by dopamine at 9:49 AM on June 8, 2006 [1 favorite]


*like my spelling nightmare. cripes. having not happening.
posted by dopamine at 9:50 AM on June 8, 2006


I noticed a couple of posters comparing her outburst to Ted Rall's infamous cartoon. While I concede there is some similarity, Rall was criticizing those survivors who were arguing over multimillion dollar settlements; that was far more money than the families of the Oklahoma City bombing victims got and also far more than the zero compensation the families of most murder victims get. Coulter on the other hand finds it reprehensible that these women support Democrats and called for an investigation into how 9-11 happened. In other words, Rall was criticizing greed, while Coulter was criticizing political participation she doesn't agree with. A big difference in my book.
posted by TedW at 9:53 AM on June 8, 2006


Another irony here is that left-wing cartoonist Ted Rall did a strip a few years ago attacking the mindset of "terror widows" and righties were calling for his head- papers dropped him, Freepers gnashed, etc.... go read FreeRepublic now and the little shits are all ecstatically typing with one hand about how Ann "tells it like it is."

I was just about to post this comment. The right's hypocrisy on this subject is damning, to say the least.
posted by Mr. Six at 9:53 AM on June 8, 2006


Ann conveniently forgets the 9/11 widows trotted out on stage at the GOP convention here to support Bush, and trotted out on the media too, to counter the Jersey Girls.
posted by amberglow at 9:59 AM on June 8, 2006


The right's hypocrisy on this subject is damning, to say the least

I don't really look at Freepers as necessarily being part of the right. They seem more like a bunch of angry white frat guys who are bitter about actually having to work hard to achieve success in life, rather than have it handed to them. At any rate, I only go to that site when I want to be reminded of how many truly reprehensible, bigoted, angry people live in my country. I'll pass this time.
posted by psmealey at 10:12 AM on June 8, 2006


I like the "Ubertroll" title.

Jacob Heilbrunn, reviewing Treason, calls her McCarthy in a mini. Coulter's got the same intellectually-primitive style as Senator Joe McCarthy (known as "moral clarity" these days); in wartime, her popularity isn't that surprising.

Plus, of course, she shares in the hero worship of George W. Bush. I'm guessing many of his supporters--and Coulter's fans--identify with Bush, and regard any criticism of him as a personal attack. You can see the appeal of someone who aggressively counter-attacks.
posted by russilwvong at 10:18 AM on June 8, 2006


"Doctrine of Infallability" isn't bullshit, it's just that both sides are so guilty of it. The left with their over-the-top politcally correct richeousness, the right with their over-the-top patriotic/capitalist richeousness that Anne herself is guilty of.

It's clear that Anne is just a publicity whore who's found her niche. We don't "need her" any more than we need a stick in the eye, because we don't need any more richeousness from either side.

We need discourse, not contrived outrage.
posted by dobie at 10:23 AM on June 8, 2006


Another irony here is that left-wing cartoonist Ted Rall did a strip a few years ago attacking the mindset of "terror widows" and righties were calling for his head- papers dropped him...

You're right — and he was roundly defended by liberals, the same liberals who are now calling for Coulter's head. So hypocrisy infects both sides of the aisle — but I'll bet MeFites have some weak rationalization for excusing Rall, just like the LGF crowd will have some weak rationalization for excusing Coulter.

This thread is funny, like watching a crack addict argue with himself. You're positively frothing with words like "bitch" and "cunt," but no one has seemed to notice that you're arguing with thin air. I don't understand the attraction — but at 100+ comments, apparently many of you do.
posted by cribcage at 10:26 AM on June 8, 2006


and he was roundly defended by liberals, the same liberals who are now calling for Coulter's head

cite plz
posted by sonofsamiam at 10:32 AM on June 8, 2006


amberglow writes "Ann conveniently forgets the 9/11 widows trotted out on stage at the GOP convention here to support Bush, and trotted out on the media too, to counter the Jersey Girls."

Ehehe she "addressed" that by saying in the infamous video "ooooh I am talking about the OTHER bad wives" in a classical convenient dicotomy ; which wasn't pointed out by the apparent incompetent interviewer, who should have pointed that out.
posted by elpapacito at 10:35 AM on June 8, 2006


Poor Ann. Will no gentleman come to her defense. After all, though you may not her views on the widows, here is what she says about our neighbors to the North
http://throwawayyourtv.com/2006/06/why-i-think-ann-coulter-is-douche.html
posted by Postroad at 10:37 AM on June 8, 2006


Who?
posted by Smedleyman at 11:09 AM on June 8, 2006


The left with their over-the-top politcally correct richeousness

Res ipsa loquitur.
posted by fourcheesemac at 11:43 AM on June 8, 2006


Coulter Voter Fraud: New Admissions! Digging her Own Grave -- Denies Living in Palm Beach Which Means She Admits to Breaking Florida State Tax Law By Taking a $25k Homestead Exemption.
posted by ericb at 11:50 AM on June 8, 2006


I thought about doing an FPP on Republican summer reading ideas. First off, of course, would be Coulter's latest opus Godless: The Church of Liberalism. From her site: "This is not a book about liberals. I stress this in anticipation of Alan Colmes hectoring the author to name names. (For people who resented being asked to "name names" during the 1950s, these liberals sure aren't shy about demanding that conservatives do the same today.) It is a book about liberalism, our official state religion. Liberalism is a doctrine with a specific set of tenets that can be discussed, just like other religions."

Fascinating. I hadn't realized John Stuart Mill put together On Liberty and the principle of "the tyranny of the majority" as an explicity theological text. Republicans are so smart!

After you're done with that, there's always Ramesh Ponnuru's thoughtful, ground-breaking work The Party of Death: The Democrats, the Media, the Courts, and the Disregard for Human Life. From the blurb: "They celebrate abortion on demand as a fundamental human right. They advocate euthanasia, and work energetically for embryo-killing research. They explicitly deny that all human beings are equal in having a right to life, and unblushingly propose the creation of a category of "human non-persons" who can be treated as expendable. In line with that, some of them have already begun calling for the killing of sick infants -- for their own good, of course."

All of this is a long way of saying to the apologists for hate--stfu. You blithely defend maniacal bigots like Coulter and Ponnuru by saying, "Well, you guys have Michael Moore." Well, I guess we do, but ya know what? Say what you will about his politics, his weight, his dislike of Bush, what have you, but he doesn't condemn half of the American populace as being "godless" and/or downright murderous and lacking all moral values. He doesn't advocate the assasination of SCOTUS judges. He doesn't advocate mass-murdering "ragheads" and forcing them to convert to Christianity. He doesn't think a fertilized zygote deserves all the rights, protections, and responsibilities of a fully formed human being. Astro Zombie is entirely correct that the "Coulter as humorist' argument is a line of bunk. So is the equivalence argument. If you defend Coulter, you defend hate, and that's the most un-American thing I can think of.
posted by bardic at 11:53 AM on June 8, 2006


Dobie

The right wing has "richeousness", the left wing merely has righteousness.
posted by Mental Wimp at 12:03 PM on June 8, 2006


Coulter Voter Fraud: New Admissions! Digging her Own Grave -- Denies Living in Palm Beach Which Means She Admits to Breaking Florida State Tax Law By Taking a $25k Homestead Exemption.

If anyone wants to follow up on this, a letter or phone call to the office of the Florida Attorney General might help this state recoup its financial losses and land Ms. Coulter with a felony rap.
posted by Mr. Six at 12:04 PM on June 8, 2006


I don't think that you all realize that Ann Coulter is a satirist far beyond the caliber of Steven Colbert. Where do you think he got the idea?
posted by 517 at 12:55 PM on June 8, 2006


Ya know 517, this meme has been around a bit, and I used to think it was just another lame defense of Coulter's bigotry. But what finally flipped my wig and made me think, in all sincerity, that Coulter is a masterful post-modern humorist actually meant to expose the right for the hateful McCarthyites that they are, is the fact that on the cover of Godless she's wearing a come-hither nightgown. I'm a big fan of women in little black party dresses, but that's basically a neglige she's wearing. On the cover of a book about how morally impaired Democrats are.

Weird. Is there a rehab clinic for people suffering from overwhelming irony exposure? Because I can't figure this stuff out any more.
posted by bardic at 1:03 PM on June 8, 2006


I've been having the same problem recently.
posted by 517 at 1:19 PM on June 8, 2006


I think implying Coulter is pre- or post-op is an insult to trans people...she has female reproductive organs, all right - she just doesn't deserve them. Especially considering she's willing to hand all control of her uterus over to the neocon antichoice agenda.

Open-minded grownups can find a million better things to call her out on. Suggesting someone isn't a biological woman is not an insult - it's just ignorant.
posted by SassHat at 1:33 PM on June 8, 2006






No problem with that, ericb. There are a lot of people who don't attend services merely because they manage to find the spiritual fulfillment they need without going to church-- look at the various cloistered nuns throughout the ages, for instance. This doesn't mean anyone is being a "bad" christian by any sense.

In Coulter's case, its likely that there isn't a church to contain her, or she may think that they're somehow too liberal.
posted by taursir at 2:49 PM on June 8, 2006


Who was that liberal fuck who used to spout off about "Love thy neighbor" and "turn the other cheek" and all that other hippy-commie-HillaryClinton-muslimloving garbage?
posted by bardic at 2:53 PM on June 8, 2006


ericb: Did you even read past the headline? The author cites an April 17, 2005 article in which John Cloud claimed that Coulter attends Redeemer Presbyterian Church. There's no mention of Coulter ever making that claim.

In other words, the headline is bullshit and the author's a troll.
posted by cribcage at 2:58 PM on June 8, 2006


@psmealey

I'd only ever heard of Free Republic before. I visited the site just now, and holy crap you weren't kidding about angry and bigoted. A lot of them seem to be under the same Kool-Aid induced delusion, which is kind of freaky.

I also got the impression that the moderators there made sure that only those messages that toed the Hard Right line are allowed to remain. It reminds me of the Fascist Groupthink you might find in science fiction novels or in the "No Spin Zone."
posted by illiad at 3:31 PM on June 8, 2006


Media figures, GOP strategists defend Coulter's attacks on 9-11 widows

(and she's coming up on Lou Dobbs in a few minutes--they're a good match--he hates Mexicans and she hates everyone else)
posted by amberglow at 3:32 PM on June 8, 2006


God, she's such a dick.
posted by mkultra at 3:35 PM on June 8, 2006


rude pundit: Why Ann Coulter Is a Cunt, Part 2609 of an Endless Series (More Plagiarism? Edition) (dirty, and great, as usual from him)
posted by amberglow at 3:36 PM on June 8, 2006


The families have so little to do with the massive clusterfuck of the new development that it's not even worth mentioning them.

As for Ann Coulter, she's Hitler in Prada.
posted by klangklangston at 3:42 PM on June 8, 2006


cribcage

Yeah, but the point of the article is that: Coulter is curiously reticent in Godless about her own religious convictions. Nowhere in her book, for instance, does Coulter declare whether she belongs to a particular religious denomination, nor does she state where – or even if – she attends religious services.

In otherwords does she practice what she preaches?

I think she doesn't believe in religion or possibly in God and simply wrote the book as another way to sideswipe liberals and get everybody up in arms over her particular brand of humor.

And, come on folks, despite the fact that she pisses off the Left and makes the Right giddy it is all an act. She's laughing all the way to the bank.
posted by Rashomon at 3:52 PM on June 8, 2006


In other words, the headline is bullshit and the author's a troll.

glad we could count on you to stand up for poor little Ann. it's like driving the shit truck -- somebody's gotta do it.
posted by Hat Maui at 3:56 PM on June 8, 2006 [1 favorite]


Holy crapola. Coulter just declared herself "the Mark Twain of Conservatism" or somesuch. On Lou Dobbs. National television. Without blinking an eye.
posted by illiad at 3:58 PM on June 8, 2006


I have to say. Even though I'm not strictly a believer, I come by my rather radical political beliefs at the tail end of a long tradition of Christian radicalism. I wonder what would happen if those traditions started visibly protesting the attempt to make them invisible?
posted by KirkJobSluder at 4:11 PM on June 8, 2006


I wonder what would happen if those traditions started visibly protesting the attempt to make them invisible?

You mean there is a conspiracy to silence radical christians ? If so there could be one but it's formed by a couple of radical anti-christians. Pot meet kettle. And what would be the point of "silencing" christian if alternative (but not necessarialy opposite, destructive) is considered by some better then the christian one ?

For instance, some argue that gay marriage will 'destroy' marriage as we know it, which is the usual appeal to emotion ; a rational being would notice that gay marriage isn't the antithesis of hetero marriage, they both can co-exist as they are not mutually exclusive. YET to the emotionally driven person, the mere outlook that what he thinks he believes into "is in danger" sounds like an appeal to defend "his values" , yet they are not under attack, almost nobody wants to cancel christiany, buddish, church of flying spaghetti monster ,whatever.

But suppose one wishes to destroy the christian morals : what could he do ? One good start could be that of demonizing christian morals, for instance by claiming that heterosexual marriage is against nature because there is nothing in nature as marriage ! This absurd phenomenon called "marriage" is only an attempt by a restricted minority of sexually afraid people to have people behave in a way that is reassuring to them.
posted by elpapacito at 4:32 PM on June 8, 2006


KSJ, in all sincerity I consider Jesus to be the original radical Christian. Kind of a hard argument to make with many of my neighbors these days, but oh well. Unlike most of them I've actually read the entire Bible.
posted by bardic at 4:35 PM on June 8, 2006


elpapacito: You mean there is a conspiracy to silence radical christians ? If so there could be one but it's formed by a couple of radical anti-christians. Pot meet kettle.

I don't know if I really understand what you are saying. But I don't think that a conspiracy is needed. What I'm suggesting is that the religious right seems to be engaged in an attempt to stereotype left-wing politics as secular and atheist, and failing to acknowledge the fact that not all Christians would agree with their claims, now or in history.

You can see this for example with the whole "attack on Christmas" thing. There is a long tradition of protestant skepticism regarding public celebration of Christmas as a distraction from spiritual meaning of the holiday. It wasn't until the 20th century that Christmas became a bigger public holiday than the 4th of July. And yet, daring to question those 20th century commercial traditions is defined as "anti-Christian" according to right-wing pundits .

And I'm using "radical" here to mean raising fundamental questions regarding the morality of the status quo. So for example, you have some pretty beliefs regarding the equality of all human beings, prison reform, oaths to the government, slavery, economic justice, pacifism, and education.

For instance, some argue that gay marriage will 'destroy' marriage as we know it, which is the usual appeal to emotion ; a rational being would notice that gay marriage isn't the antithesis of hetero marriage, they both can co-exist as they are not mutually exclusive.

I've found that many of the most vocal activists for gay marriage are people of faith who argue that they are called to support marriage of any form. Their argument (not mine) if two people feel the call to get married, that should be supported, legally and within their congregations.

And this holds true for many other issues. There are people who see the war in Iraq as a spiritual abomination. These are the people who show up to the protests week after week after week.

My suggestion is that these are the people who should be calling Coltier and O'Reilly to task when they call the left "Godless."
posted by KirkJobSluder at 5:23 PM on June 8, 2006


Yeah, but the point of the article is that...

No. The point of the article is to allege that Ann Coulter lied. Problem being, the author offers no evidence that Coulter ever made the claim in the first place. And it's flatly dishonest for you to imply that this wasn't the central argument of that article.

In otherwords does she practice what she preaches?

I don't know. I have no idea whether she attends church or believes in God. I don't read her columns and I don't buy her books — and since I have absolutely no information about her religious practices and beliefs, I choose not to make assumptions.

You've assumed that she doesn't attend church or believe in God. So either (1) you have information about her that I don't, or (2) you're talking out of your ass. I don't know anything about you, either, so I won't assume which is true.

And Hat Maui, I can always count on you to behave like a dumb little troll. The article is demonstrably bullshit, but you don't care: The author is attacking Ann Coulter, so you agree with whatever he says — even if he's, y'know, making shit up. Thanks for providing today's demonstration of "knee-jerk."
posted by cribcage at 5:35 PM on June 8, 2006


When they came for Ann Coulter, I said nothing.

Because they can have her.
posted by bardic at 5:47 PM on June 8, 2006


HAHA!

Just look at all the comments here.

You're ALL suckers, willing ones at that.

Why don't you all just get her picture tattooed onto your foreheads?
posted by HTuttle at 6:40 PM on June 8, 2006


Could I have her picture tattooed to my ass? 'Cause next time I get my ass kicked I won't feel so bad.
posted by illiad at 6:47 PM on June 8, 2006


And you all KEEP talking about her and talking about her and talking about her...

You all remind me of the schoolboys cruelly picking on the girl they secretly have a crush on.

So, come on big fellas, why don't you all just stand up and ADMIT it already!
posted by HTuttle at 7:07 PM on June 8, 2006


I have a crush on Paula Zahn. Ann Coulter is more like that snotty rich-bitch that no one intelligent likes but they steer clear of her because her Dad's the mayor.

Loads of fun talking about her though.
posted by illiad at 7:12 PM on June 8, 2006


cribcage, ow! you hurt my feeling.

you may be right about that coulter link you're on about, i have no idea. i didn't read it.

what i do know is that anyone who's willing to vigorously stick up for ann coulter is the same kind of jackass who would say "get a job" to a homeless person, or maybe kick an errant puppy.

i'll tell you this, though -- i do appreciate the fact that you link to your blog on your profile page. i bookmarked it in my "comedy" folder, right under the onion.

also, i just got a call from alex p. keaton -- he wants his wardrobe back.

stay beautiful, you little yuppie twat, you!
posted by Hat Maui at 7:14 PM on June 8, 2006


My vote is for the "performance artist / Andy Kaufman" angle.

I think she's simply in the business of being as absolutely offensive and outrageous as possible, and may actually be secretly astonished that she's actually able to get away with being so completely incendiary and taken mostly seriously by the American public at the same time.

She's a political Al Goldstein.
posted by hwestiii at 7:17 PM on June 8, 2006


i didn't read it.

Ha. Yeah, exactly. Thanks for nicely demonstrating my point.

Re: my blog: Cool. So that would make you 70.56.121.250. Thanks for letting me know. It'll be amusing to watch how often you stop by.
posted by cribcage at 7:22 PM on June 8, 2006


ITSCA (to paraphrase Dan Savage...)
posted by crataegus at 7:54 PM on June 8, 2006


not nearly as amusing as stopping by will be for me. you're such a cute little righty law student! i knew dozens of guys like you when i was in law school. it really made the whole experience so much more fulfilling, to see so many living, breathing examples of what not to be.
posted by Hat Maui at 9:56 PM on June 8, 2006


Wow, Hat Maui, way to derail your own FPP.

*Golf clap*
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 10:04 PM on June 8, 2006


...when i was in law school.

Did you drop out?

Because it's kind of funny to hear you talk about law students as examples of "what not to be." The typical complaint against lawyers is that they lack integrity. But here you are, flaming me because I criticized an article that was intentionally misleading and based on an unsubstantiated claim. In other words, you approve of slanderous lies when they're aimed at people you despise.

And that's funny, because most people would interpret that as a lack of integrity.

What's worse is that, twice during this thread, I suggested that I disagreed with Coulter — but you're too stupid to comprehend that. The only principle within your grasp is Us versus Them: "Cribcage criticized the guy who attacked Ann Coulter, therefore Cribcage must support Ann Coulter." Which is exactly like saying, "If you don't support the Patriot Act, then you support Al-Qaeda."

So we've demonstrated that (1) you're stupid, (2) you have no ethics, and (3) you can't find the SHIFT key. I'll ask again: You must have dropped out, right?
posted by cribcage at 10:48 PM on June 8, 2006


Doesn't anyone else here have a crush on Paula Zahn? Enough about who killed whom!

That Paula. She has legs that go up to her neck.
posted by illiad at 11:14 PM on June 8, 2006


Heh. Reminds me of Colbert's character always ogling Soledad O'brien.
posted by bardic at 11:27 PM on June 8, 2006


Wouldn't her christian criteria (followers of abraham) also make Muslims christian?
posted by drezdn at 11:42 PM on June 8, 2006


FDL post on Coulter.
posted by bardic at 12:05 AM on June 9, 2006


it's kind of funny to hear you talk about law students

i wasn't speaking of garden-variety law students -- overachievers who accept careers filled with tedious busywork (firms are like zombies craving "more brainsbillable hours!") because they're not creative enough to find something more useful to do with their abilities -- i was speaking (or typing) of your ilk -- establishmentarian twerps that bray loudly against imagined encroachments against their hegemony in the name of robotic obedience to various sources of authority. put simply, for your benefit, cribcage: useful, clever greedy sheep.

In other words, you approve of slanderous lies when they're aimed at people you despise.

that's some sweet poeticizing, wordsworthless, but that's not what i said, supra. no, instead i was remarking upon your courageous defense of coulter, likening it to "driving the shit truck." i couldn't care less that there's one misleading article out there about ann coulter. we'll throw it on the balance sheet and see how it measures up against coulter's greatest hits. let's score it thusly:

irresponsible articles written about ann coulter: 1 (fine, i'll give it an MOE of 3 or something)

egregiously irresposible and hateful statements by coulter about others: roughly equivalent to the population of new canaan, connecticut.

What's worse is that, twice during this thread, I suggested that I disagreed with Coulter — but you're too stupid to comprehend that.

again, i'm almost flattered to be called stupid by you. but don't presume i give all your comments as close a reading as i give some of the choicer ones.

The only principle within your grasp is Us versus Them

you're forgetting "the pleasure principle," which janet jackson taught me.

Cribcage criticized the guy who attacked Ann Coulter, therefore Cribcage must support Ann Coulter

quite rather, "Cribcage offered an insubstantial, unlinked defense of Ann Coulter after someone linked to a criticism of her offsite that he insists was like, totally unfay-errr!; therefore Cribcage (predictably enough) feels compelled to carry the water for one of the vilest representatives of the right's carnival of hate."

Which is exactly like saying, "If you don't support the Patriot Act, then you support Al-Qaeda."

you might want to look up "exactly."

So we've demonstrated that (1) you're stupid,

again with the love poetry (with numbers) that insists on calling me stupid or some derivation thereof. that's thrice, dude -- are you insecure or something? why do you feel so compelled to impugn my intelligence? are you threatened?

(2) you have no ethics, and

i'm also not sure on what basis you challenge my sense of ethics, other than a willful misunderstanding of my comments.

look, i didn't say you were bad for driving the shit truck, if that's what upsets you. it's a dirty job but someone's gotta do it, as the man said.

(3) you can't find the SHIFT key.

see above, students of internet arguments: when it turns to posting styles, the first one to attack someone's use of lowercase has won the argument, prima facie.

I'll ask again: You must have dropped out, right?

are you trying to suggest that law school is tough or something? that you're special for having a law degree (assuming you do)? completing law school is hardly a metric of one's intelligence. i know, i know -- you're experiencing cognitive dissonance, because you place such a high value on your own matriculation at law school, and as you seem to feel compelled to impugn me as stupid, you're puzzled that a stupid guy like me could get a law degree just like your smug little ass.

but rest assured, i persisted to the bitter end. biggest waste of time and money in my life. really, the legal world is full of angry, sanctimonius assholes like you and the Site Member Who Shall Not Be Named, and the thought of years spend in the company of such folk gave me the worst case of the howling fantods that can be imagined.

so now i work as a shepherd. gotta love the wireless internet!
posted by Hat Maui at 3:46 AM on June 9, 2006


*tickles hat maui with a feather* you really love slicing and harassing the minor habens, don't you you bad bad baby gorilla !
posted by elpapacito at 4:50 AM on June 9, 2006


equivalent to the population of new canaan, connecticut

Easy on old NC (go Rams!). Demon spawn Annie C may have come from there, but decent people like me were raised (and escaped from) there as well!
posted by psmealey at 5:18 AM on June 9, 2006


Metafilter: establishmentarian twerps that bray loudly against imagined encroachments against their hegemony in the name of robotic obedience to various sources of authority.

Seriously, Hat Maui, that was well put. I know exactly the law student (and subsequently lawyer) type you mean. A bitch slap is too good for 'em.
posted by fourcheesemac at 5:44 AM on June 9, 2006


you're experiencing cognitive dissonance, because you place such a high value on your own matriculation at law school, and as you seem to feel compelled to impugn me as stupid, you're puzzled that a stupid guy like me could get a law degree just like your smug little ass.

Ha! Thanks for making my morning fun...
posted by Mr. Six at 6:34 AM on June 9, 2006


... I've always been curious what it takes for a conservative to reach genuine pariah status in the political world. Last fall, Bill O'Reilly suggested that it'd be fine with him if al Queda attacked a major American city. There were no apparent adverse consequences. In 2001, just 48 hours after 9/11, Jerry Falwell said liberal Americans were to blame for the attacks and said the nation "deserved" to be hit by terrorists. Five years later, he's hanging out with John McCain as if he were a credible figure in Republican politics, which he unfortunately is. It's easy to pull equally disturbing comments from Limbaugh, Robertson, Dobson, etc. Not one lost his status as a leading conservative voice.
Coulter is a best-selling pariah this week, but she'll be back on the air soon enough. What would it take for a conservative to get permanently shunned by polite society? I have a hunch lashing out at 9/11 widows just isn't enough these days.

posted by amberglow at 7:51 AM on June 9, 2006


From that FDL link: "Maybe you’re enjoying your role as the Tonya Harding of the punditocracy." Exactly.
posted by ericb at 8:53 AM on June 9, 2006


that's not what i said, supra. ... i couldn't care less that there's one misleading article out there about ann coulter.

That's the funniest comment I've read in a month. You deny saying what I accused you of saying — and then you turn around and say exactly what I accused you of saying.

why do you feel so compelled to impugn my intelligence? are you threatened?

Translation: "IKnowYouAreButWhatAmI..."

i'm also not sure on what basis you challenge my sense of ethics

You mean, 'cause I only explained it twice and I didn't use crayon?

Cribcage offered an insubstantial, unlinked defense of Ann Coulter...

Since that's the closest you came to actually countering anything I wrote, I'll point out that it's utter bullshit. For the benefit of chimps like you who argue about articles they couldn't be bothered to read, I have explained repeatedly: The author alleges that Ann Coulter claimed X, and his supporting evidence is that John Cloud said X. If your crippled grasp of logic interprets this criticism as "insubstantial," then my heart weeps for the Arizona legal community.

But it's "unlinked" that really wins your argument. The article had been linked twice in a row, already; but because I didn't link to it a third time, you declare my criticism to be invalid. That's the second-funniest comment I've read in a month.
posted by cribcage at 9:33 AM on June 9, 2006


Jesus Christ, take it to Meta or get a room.
posted by bardic at 9:37 AM on June 9, 2006


i'm down with the getting a room idea. did you see cribcage's cute little mug on his blog? he's some serious prisonerbait.
posted by Hat Maui at 12:28 PM on June 9, 2006


9/11 Commissioner Criticizes Coulter
A member of the Sept. 11 commission on Friday lashed out at conservative pundit Ann Coulter for a "hate-filled attack" in saying the widows whose husbands died in the World Trade Center used the deaths for their own political gain.

...Former Rep. Tim Roemer, D-Ind., a member of the commission that investigated the Sept. 11 attacks, called Coulter's "hate-filled attack on the patriotic heroes of 9/12 — the widows of 9/11 — reprehensible and undignified."

Roemer urged people not to buy her book. "Americans shouldn't contribute to her profiting from these vicious remarks."

Rep. Rahm Emmanuel, D-Ill., said Thursday on the House floor that Coulter is a "hatemonger" and called on Republicans to denounce her: "I must ask my colleagues on the other side of the aisle: Does Ann Coulter speak for you when she suggests poisoning not Supreme Court Justices or slanders the 9/11 ... widows? If not, speak now. Your silence allows her to be your spokesman."

[Associated Press | June 09, 2006]
posted by ericb at 5:28 PM on June 9, 2006


Defending Coulter, O'Reilly and Limbaugh claimed she "doesn't lie" -- Media Matters sets the record straight.
posted by ericb at 5:33 PM on June 9, 2006


O'Reilly and Limbaugh claimed she "doesn't lie"

You know who else "didn't lie?" Hitler. That's who.

Honestly what's the fucking deal with saying that she doesn't lie? She basically spews subjective filth on a variety of subjects. Whether it's factually accurate or not is not really the point, is it? Even it she didn't mislead or dissemble (which she does routinely, as the MM link demonstrates), everything she does poisons further the already toxic well of public discourse.
posted by psmealey at 9:25 AM on June 11, 2006


I fucked Ann Coulter in the ass, hard.

It would be the only possible way to do so. Mainly because I theorize that she had her genitals surgically fused to make normal sex impossible, leaving her in a state of constant sexual frustration which she channels into this frothing, idiotic lunacy that she... I guess pretends has something to do with a human being's possible political opinion. But obviously this procedure has poisoned her mind to the point of her sort of flailing around like a cat hit by a car.

It could be amusing, except of that huge group of people that confuse professional wrestling with being reality confusing her opinion having anything to do with reality.
posted by smallerdemon at 11:20 AM on June 11, 2006


...Anyone who assumes that this is about nothing more than publicity for her book, or that the mainstream right has now hit its own moral nadir and will now drive her away with righteous outrage, or that if all of us liberals just pay no attention, everyone else will get embarrassed and stop listening to and reading Ann Coulter, is failing to grasp an important point. It's not just about publicity. It's not just about making liberals angry. And as far as mainstream conservatism is concerned, it's certainly not in any way shape or form about Coulter's affront to basic humanity.
It's about multiplying those empty stares. Its about taking American discourse into an even lower level, one in which both common sense, common decency and even the basic verities of how language works are deliberately discarded, allowing the likes of Mary Matalin and Lou Dobbs, and Sean Hannity and, a few weeks down the road, Tucker Carlson (trust me, he'll get over it), to defend the indefensible.
... Ann Coulter might be a little too manic for them, but once her message has been ingested, metabolized, and regurgitated for them in more measured tones by other more acceptable pundits, they'll decide it's all right after all to grossly impugn the motives and the marriages of grieving 9/11 victim survivors who oppose the Bush administration. Sure, it sounded a bit harsh when Ann first said it, but once they've gotten used to hearing it they'll nod in agreement with similar statements and defend them with all the sweet stupidity of SPINAL TAP's Nigel Tufnell repeating "This one's eleven."

It's already begun.

posted by amberglow at 8:45 AM on June 12, 2006


"Would it kill you, 'Godless' author Ann Coulter, to do us all a favor and kill yourself? (Oh, well, yeah, I guess it would kill you.)

After her recent rabidly hateful, foaming-at-the-mouth, sub-human 'Today' show appearance -- in which she reiterated her assertion that 9/11 widows are 'enjoying their husband's deaths' -- even her former supporters began to fantasize about how much nicer the world would be if it were Coulterless."

[Advertising Age | June 12, 2006]
posted by ericb at 11:56 AM on June 12, 2006


Ann Coulter may have plagiarized parts of her new book. The Rude Pundit has already found two examples in Chapter 1.
posted by ericb at 11:57 AM on June 12, 2006


Deadly Intent: Ann Coulter, Word Warrior
Once again, Ann Coulter has a book in need of flogging, and once again, people are stunned by what a "vicious," "mean-spirited," "despicable" "hate-monger" they say she is.

Ms. Coulter, who seems afflicted by a kind of rhetorical compulsion, most recently labeled the widows of 9/11 "harpies." It is just one in a series from a spoken-word hit parade that seems to fly out of her mouth uninterrupted by conscience, rectitude or logic.

But Ann Coulter knows precisely what she is saying....once attention, negative or otherwise, turns toward her, she is all knuckles and know-how.

...You get the idea. Wagging tongue, wagging fingers and before you know it, soon enough you have hundreds of hits on Google News for days to come

...Her attacks on the maimed or the bereft engage the thermodynamics of the media marketplace to send her to even loftier heights.

An explosive device is now baked into every book.

...Without the total package, Ms. Coulter would be just one more nut living in Mom's basement. You can accuse her of cynicism all you want, but the fact that she is one of the leading political writers of our age says something about the rest of us.

[ New York Times | June 12, 2006]
posted by ericb at 12:02 PM on June 12, 2006


This Should Be Fun To Watch

Ann Coulter and George Carlin are scheduled to appear tomorrow (Wednesday) on NBC’s Tonight Show with Jay Leno.
“Tonight” host Jay Leno might want to consider wearing referee stripes on Wednesday’s show when Ann Coulter and George Carlin are his guests.

Coulter, the acid-tongued conservative with a new book out, and Carlin, the quick-witted, antiestablishment comedian who’s in the voice cast for the new animated film “Cars,” were booked at separate times for the NBC late-nighter, a spokeswoman said Monday."
posted by ericb at 12:09 PM on June 13, 2006


the Tonight show thing is much ado about nothing--when does Leno ever let one guest go off on another? it's not Bill Mahr or a roundtable--it's Leno and a guest, then Leno and another guest.
posted by amberglow at 5:05 PM on June 14, 2006


« Older On simple human decency   |   Whistleblogging? Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments