Anne Coulter- culture warrior no more?
So we've finally gotten around to Anne Coulter. I was wondering when Dave would comment publicly on her remarks that briefly caught the media's attention a couple of weeks ago or so. The Queen of Mean came out in her new book "Godless" and called the 9/11 widows "harpies" and "millionaire broads enjoying their husbands death" merely because they criticized the Bush administration's response to 9/11. And Dave doesn't like it one bit. Or at least he says so in his new column.
I must admit, I found Dave's column surprising. I was expecting Mr. Ditto to offer an apology for Anne's recent media brouhaha- a mea culpa of sorts, if you will. I was expected to roll my eyes in weariness and dissect the public figure of Anne Coulter, pointing out that her style of shock punditry adds as much to the national discourse as Howard Stern, how someone who is so clearly bereft of ideas is acknowledged as the "leading intellectual" by the Right, and how Coulter's cruel statements benefit the Democratic party, as centrist voters defintiely don't want to be on the side of hers. But instead Dave did that. Kinda.
Dave asks why Coulter had to "go ahead and do that," asking from the perspective of "someone who's lost patience with Coulter's hyperbole and cruelty -- and the unseriousness she manifests in their indulgence." (Unseriousness? Coming from the same guy who dismissed and mocked the three suicides down at Gitmo in his last column?) Dave does say that Anne's book carries strong arguments- chapters on Willie Horton (such a timely subject!) and on abortion and crime policy. (Both abortion and violent crime rates have risen under Dubya's watch. Why do I find it doubtful that Anne makes that point in her book?) But yet although her arguments are "strong," Dave claims she "spoils" them through her cruelness and gracelessness. So, are they strong arguments or not? Are her arguments null and void due to the language she uses? And hasn't cruelness and gracelessness been a hallmark of right-wing punditry for nearly two decades (see Limbaugh, Rush)?
I find this column interesting in the aftermath of Anne Coulter's appearance on The Tonight Show last week, when Jay Leno threw some softballs at her. When Jay asked her why she needs to be so "nasty" in her book, Anne replied that things were more civil when liberals owned three televsion stations, but now that there are more options there has been a "disruption of civility." Right, Anne, the suits at General Electric, owning NBC, are liberals as they secure governemtn defense funding for their military weapons divison. Disney, owning ABC, are obviously liberal as they embrace a deregulated "free market" in their attempt to Disnefy the world. And Viacom, the owner of CBS? This "liberal" company refused to run a MoveOn ad during the Super Bowl in 2004. Cause that's what liberals wouldn't do, or something.
I forget, just how often did the "liberal" media pound to death the debunked Swift Boat Liars during the sumemr of 2004, thus handing George W. Bush the election? Gosh, you would've thunk these "liberals" would've realized that putting so much attention on rumor-mongering would've hurt Kerry's chances. Maybe she and other conservative pundits are correct in stating that liberals are none too bright!
Face it, the boardrooms of every major media company are staffed with owners of MBAs. There only goal is to maximize profit- a squarely liberal idea. Do reporters and journalists tend to side on a liberal perspective? Historically, yes. But who has the final say of content? Obviously the CEOs. Anyone notice how Anne appears by herself when she visits cable talk shows, never contested by liberal authors or pundits? (George Carlin "moving to the right" on the couch doesn't count.) She could thank her enemies at the "liberal media" for such kid glove treatment.
For Anne Coulter to be complaining about the "liberal media" shows both the weakness and the lack of timeliness of her arguments. I've noticed a decrease of media attention after the firestorm that surrounded the release of her book. Could it possibly be that the men upstairs have noticed the backlash that was hurting the appeal of their conservative message? Sure, Anne's book shot to #1, but she's a name author cashing in on the role she played in Clinton's impeachment drama, trying to extend her fifteen minutes longer than the hem of her trademark short skirts. her fans bought her book, but it won't have staying power. She represents a minority viewpoint, as she describes herself as a polemicst. (Which strikes me as bizarre that she vehemently hates minorities so much.)
Anotehr thing Anne mentioned on The Tonight Show, as they discussed the 9/11 windows subject, was that the Left will no longer be able to hide behind widows and other victims. "They won't be able to use that trick any more," she said. Trick? It's a clever ruse, but I see right through it. She wants to discredit those who were victimized by the Bush administration, be it by the Iraq war, Katrina, lousy domestic policies, etc. Critics, due to Anne, will doubt going public with their stances, as they migh fear being portrayed as "tools of the Left." In short, it's a tactic that's tantamount to censorship- the only ones that has a voice are the ones that Anne approves of. Censorship is a subject Anne is quite aware of, as it's also something that she has whined about incessantly since she broke into the public's consiousness, including being censored by, of all places, the National Review. For her to promote censorship in any shape or form is egregious.
Anne tries to downplay her "meaness." One of her most common lines of defense is that I "only do what the Left does." Remember, this is the woman who stated that the only thing Timothy McVeigh did wrong is that he didn't target the New York Times building. I read Al Franken's "Lies and Lying Liars" and I don't recall him wishing any conservatives would get killed. Perhaps that's in his latest "TheTruth: With Jokes" which I haven't read yet. And I also haven't read Hillary Clinton's "Living History" yet. Perhaps she states which conservatives she wishes would get killed in that book. I doubt it, cause if she did I'm sure it would be the top story on FOX News- and the "liberal media"- for at least a month. Anne says her bew book is "just a bunch of jokes." because obviously nothing strikes a conservative's funny bone as much as the deaths of others. One just needs to read David Reinhard's last column for anotehr example. (Oh, and has Jay ever asked Al Franken why he needs to be so "nasty." No? Hmmmmm...)
In short, as I said above, Anne adds little to the national discourse. Her statements and public arguemtns are vapid and lack any substance. Investigatie reporter Greg Palast, author of the fantastic new book, has challenged a public debate with Coulter, who so far has been mum on the offer. Probably because she's aware that Palast would offer what amounts to krypton to conservatives: the truth, backed by facts.
People need to ignore her shreiking. Perhaps then she'd just go away. Dave's wised up to her act, and how it's hurting the conservative agenda. Maybe a wising up to the drug-addled diatribes of Rush will be next?
But wait, where would he get fodder for his bi-weekly regurgitation of Republican talking points? Oh yeah. He's still have the National Review.
I must admit, I found Dave's column surprising. I was expecting Mr. Ditto to offer an apology for Anne's recent media brouhaha- a mea culpa of sorts, if you will. I was expected to roll my eyes in weariness and dissect the public figure of Anne Coulter, pointing out that her style of shock punditry adds as much to the national discourse as Howard Stern, how someone who is so clearly bereft of ideas is acknowledged as the "leading intellectual" by the Right, and how Coulter's cruel statements benefit the Democratic party, as centrist voters defintiely don't want to be on the side of hers. But instead Dave did that. Kinda.
Dave asks why Coulter had to "go ahead and do that," asking from the perspective of "someone who's lost patience with Coulter's hyperbole and cruelty -- and the unseriousness she manifests in their indulgence." (Unseriousness? Coming from the same guy who dismissed and mocked the three suicides down at Gitmo in his last column?) Dave does say that Anne's book carries strong arguments- chapters on Willie Horton (such a timely subject!) and on abortion and crime policy. (Both abortion and violent crime rates have risen under Dubya's watch. Why do I find it doubtful that Anne makes that point in her book?) But yet although her arguments are "strong," Dave claims she "spoils" them through her cruelness and gracelessness. So, are they strong arguments or not? Are her arguments null and void due to the language she uses? And hasn't cruelness and gracelessness been a hallmark of right-wing punditry for nearly two decades (see Limbaugh, Rush)?
I find this column interesting in the aftermath of Anne Coulter's appearance on The Tonight Show last week, when Jay Leno threw some softballs at her. When Jay asked her why she needs to be so "nasty" in her book, Anne replied that things were more civil when liberals owned three televsion stations, but now that there are more options there has been a "disruption of civility." Right, Anne, the suits at General Electric, owning NBC, are liberals as they secure governemtn defense funding for their military weapons divison. Disney, owning ABC, are obviously liberal as they embrace a deregulated "free market" in their attempt to Disnefy the world. And Viacom, the owner of CBS? This "liberal" company refused to run a MoveOn ad during the Super Bowl in 2004. Cause that's what liberals wouldn't do, or something.
I forget, just how often did the "liberal" media pound to death the debunked Swift Boat Liars during the sumemr of 2004, thus handing George W. Bush the election? Gosh, you would've thunk these "liberals" would've realized that putting so much attention on rumor-mongering would've hurt Kerry's chances. Maybe she and other conservative pundits are correct in stating that liberals are none too bright!
Face it, the boardrooms of every major media company are staffed with owners of MBAs. There only goal is to maximize profit- a squarely liberal idea. Do reporters and journalists tend to side on a liberal perspective? Historically, yes. But who has the final say of content? Obviously the CEOs. Anyone notice how Anne appears by herself when she visits cable talk shows, never contested by liberal authors or pundits? (George Carlin "moving to the right" on the couch doesn't count.) She could thank her enemies at the "liberal media" for such kid glove treatment.
For Anne Coulter to be complaining about the "liberal media" shows both the weakness and the lack of timeliness of her arguments. I've noticed a decrease of media attention after the firestorm that surrounded the release of her book. Could it possibly be that the men upstairs have noticed the backlash that was hurting the appeal of their conservative message? Sure, Anne's book shot to #1, but she's a name author cashing in on the role she played in Clinton's impeachment drama, trying to extend her fifteen minutes longer than the hem of her trademark short skirts. her fans bought her book, but it won't have staying power. She represents a minority viewpoint, as she describes herself as a polemicst. (Which strikes me as bizarre that she vehemently hates minorities so much.)
Anotehr thing Anne mentioned on The Tonight Show, as they discussed the 9/11 windows subject, was that the Left will no longer be able to hide behind widows and other victims. "They won't be able to use that trick any more," she said. Trick? It's a clever ruse, but I see right through it. She wants to discredit those who were victimized by the Bush administration, be it by the Iraq war, Katrina, lousy domestic policies, etc. Critics, due to Anne, will doubt going public with their stances, as they migh fear being portrayed as "tools of the Left." In short, it's a tactic that's tantamount to censorship- the only ones that has a voice are the ones that Anne approves of. Censorship is a subject Anne is quite aware of, as it's also something that she has whined about incessantly since she broke into the public's consiousness, including being censored by, of all places, the National Review. For her to promote censorship in any shape or form is egregious.
Anne tries to downplay her "meaness." One of her most common lines of defense is that I "only do what the Left does." Remember, this is the woman who stated that the only thing Timothy McVeigh did wrong is that he didn't target the New York Times building. I read Al Franken's "Lies and Lying Liars" and I don't recall him wishing any conservatives would get killed. Perhaps that's in his latest "TheTruth: With Jokes" which I haven't read yet. And I also haven't read Hillary Clinton's "Living History" yet. Perhaps she states which conservatives she wishes would get killed in that book. I doubt it, cause if she did I'm sure it would be the top story on FOX News- and the "liberal media"- for at least a month. Anne says her bew book is "just a bunch of jokes." because obviously nothing strikes a conservative's funny bone as much as the deaths of others. One just needs to read David Reinhard's last column for anotehr example. (Oh, and has Jay ever asked Al Franken why he needs to be so "nasty." No? Hmmmmm...)
In short, as I said above, Anne adds little to the national discourse. Her statements and public arguemtns are vapid and lack any substance. Investigatie reporter Greg Palast, author of the fantastic new book, has challenged a public debate with Coulter, who so far has been mum on the offer. Probably because she's aware that Palast would offer what amounts to krypton to conservatives: the truth, backed by facts.
People need to ignore her shreiking. Perhaps then she'd just go away. Dave's wised up to her act, and how it's hurting the conservative agenda. Maybe a wising up to the drug-addled diatribes of Rush will be next?
But wait, where would he get fodder for his bi-weekly regurgitation of Republican talking points? Oh yeah. He's still have the National Review.
posted by true_slicky at 11:26 PM
5 Comments:
So Dave thinks that Coulter has "stunning looks"? In what universe are dyed-blond anorectics with manly Adam's apples and horsey faces considered attractive? It must be the Republican pundit universe, since compared to Kate O'Bierne and Lynne Cheney, then OK, maybe I can see where Coulter could get Dave's crotch a'stirring.
You notice how I avoided discussing Coulter's appearance? Picking fights on somebody based on their appearance just shows that you really have no argument, and must hide behind ad hominem attacks about how other people look.
Which is, of course, what Anne does in her new book, attacking Cindy Sheehan for wearing shorts. Could imagine its hot in summer down in Crawford, TX. But if a middle-aged mother "doesn't have the body" to wear shorts, perhaps she should stick with wearing Capris and make Anne happy.
Seriously, though, when Dubya said he had a "mandate" after the 2004 election, my first thought was "He's going on a date with Anne Coulter? Isn't he married?"
You are, of course, correct about using a person's appearance instead of a reasoned argument, and I did notice your forebearance on this score.
I took a shot at Coulter's appearance only because (1) Dave mentions it to explain her otherwise inexplicable appeal and (2) she obviously believes herself to be quite the babe.
Skinny blondes are a definiton of a "babe" for a good number of people. I do have to agree, if she's what makes a conservative male heart go a-flutter, then there merely reflects the fact that compared to other conservative women in the public eye, she's perhaps most passable to be a "babe" in the eyes of Reinhard.
Listening to Randi Rhoades today, she was asking for similar sex appeal on the Democratic side. Who do we have? For some reason I draw a blank. I can think of plenty of women who appeal on an intellectual level- Amy Goodman, Laura Flanders- but where are the faces?
Good point, that. WHy don't the Democrats recruit their lefty babe whose first book could be called "Anne Coutler is a Buck-Toothed, Horse-Faced Skeleton?"
http://evangelicalperspective.blogspot.com/
Please don't use that standard line that the new is conservative because the suits may be. Please. Ownership and broadcast content are two different things.
Collin
Post a Comment
<< Home