The Paris Hilton of politics
(Note: This entry includes the relevant portion of the transcript of the Coulter interview on Good Morning America in which she made her comment about Edwards.)
I somehow missed the now eight-day-old story about Ann Coulter saying she wishes that John Edwards would be assassinated by terrorists. (Wikipedia sums it up.) Have any conservatives chastised her for this? Or have they all now bought into the idea that since liberals have often said vicious things about conservatives, it’s ok for conservatives to say vicious things about liberals? But if the conservatives have bought into that idea, then they have given up any basis for criticizing liberals for their vicious behavior, haven’t they?
I will repeat what I said at the time of Coulter’s earlier “faggot” remark about Edwards: her behavior is a disgrace, and her prominence in the conservative movement is a disgrace.
- end of initial entry -
I have an unexpected ally in criticizing Coulter—Thomas Fleming, who, by the way, in his observations of Coulter, makes the first funny comment I’ve ever seen from him.
Jeff in England writes:
The likes of Ann Coulter and Michael Savage and Al Franken and Al Sharpton are part of a general dumbing down of political (and any other) dialogue in America. The question is why is that so? Is it linked with liberal ‘transformations’ of the Sixties? I suspect so. But for now, I will leave it to others to elaborate.
Dana A. writes:
Ann Coulter did NOT say she wished he would be killed by terrorists!.
She was saying that she made a little joke about him using the the word “faggot” and everybody went nuts, meanwhile Bill Maher made the abominable comment that if Dick Cheney had been killed in the minor bomb scare that happened while he was in the Middle East it would have been a good thing because fewer US soldiers would subsequently die. She then said something to the effect of “I guess the next time I want to say something about John Edwards I’ll just wish terrorists killed him instead.” She said this SARCASTICALLY to show how big a deal everyone makes of every word that falls out of her mouth and how NO ONE cares what horrible, vile, disgusting things accepted leftists in the media say about SITTING Presidents and Vice Presidents.
Here is a clip of the ACTUAL whole exchange in context.
Your comments on Ann Coulter and Jonah Goldberg are very generation-gap. I am almost exactly their age and thats how we talk. Calling someone a “faggot” in our parlance is nothing, watch “The 40 Year Old Virgin” sometime. We also grew up watching more and more varied television than your generation and it informs most of our cultural references. This is not silly and frivolous, it is OUR culture and that of the generations below us. I went to school in the 70’s and 80’s, I was forced to read Maya Angelou in 7th grade, not Shakespeare, the culture you expect my generation to express was effectively killed and it shows few signs of coming back. You are going to become more and more disillusioned with what passes for conservatism as my generation continues to express themselves.
LA replies:
First, if the intent of Coulter’s assassination comment was to draw attention to the non-response to Maher’s comment, that makes her comment less bad but still doesn’t make it ok. The way to attack Maher’s comment and the lack of response to Maher’s comment is to attack them, not to do the same sort of thing oneself.
Second, Dana’s apologia for her generation adds up to saying that her generation’s disgusting speech and other low standards cannot be criticized, but must be accepted as the standard for society. Has Dana never heard of self-criticism and self-improvement? Apparently not. For Dana, whatever is, is good.
If Dana is correct that her generation has a different “culture” (and by the way, we’re not even talking Generation X here, given that Ann Coulter, as I just found out by looking up her on Wikipedia last night, was born in 1961), then the people from that “culture” need to be assimilated into our culture, which means giving up the aspects of their culture that are incompatible with our culture. And besides it’s not true, since, obviously, lots of people of Coulter’s age and much younger (many of them post at VFR) do not talk the way Coulter and Goldberg talk.
Maureen C. writes:
Ann Coulter was not calling for Edwards’ assassination but was pointing out the “double standard of the liberal press” in regards to reporting remarks made by Democrats and Republicans. She pointed out that the “liberal” talk show host Bill Maher had said that he wished Dick Cheney had been “killed in a terrorist assassination plot” !!! But the liberal press did not react to this outrageous statement at all. Instead, the liberal press raged at Ann for saying the word “faggot” about Edwards—a remark which did not call for Edwards to be killed. “Therefore,” said Ann, “I guess I should have called for terrorists to assassinate John Edwards” (in order to gain the same bland reaction Bill Maher recieved from the liberal press). Her point was the double standard of the liberal press—not that she wanted Edwards assassinated. And Wikipedia is dead wrong (as Wikipedia, though vastly entertaining, often is).
Ann Coulter also made the point that the continuing reaction of the liberal press to her word “faggot” about Edwards was suspect. The liberal press turned her flippant “undergraduate slang” word “faggot” about John Edwards—elicited by his famous attention to the neatness of his haircut—into more than a stab at Edwards’ prissy self: The liberal press twisted this dig at Edwards into a slur on gays, which fell “neatly” into the liberal press’ pro-gay agenda.
Furthermore, Ann’s allegedly egregious and unmentionable “faggot” remark was kept in the spotlight this week—not by Ann—but by John Edwards’ wife who called in to a talk show to repeat the remark and bemoan it—causing some people to speculate it was a deliberate ploy to redirect some of Coulter’s media candlepower to Edwards to gain sympathy and campaign funding.
LA replies:
Last night I saw on the Web a brief video clip of Coulter’s assassination comment which had the comment but not the full exchange, and then, looking for a coherent discussion of it, I went to Wikipedia. If Wikipedia quoted her out of context, can someone send the complete transcript of that exchange so we can know exactly what we’re dealing with here.
Jeremy G. writes:
You say, “if the conservatives have bought into that idea, then they have given up any basis for criticizing liberals for their vicious behavior.” I believe you have the logic backwards. It is only the continuing tremendous success of Ann Coulter’s attacks on liberals that can cause liberals to re-evaluate their method of “dialogue.”
Ann has to convey political content to millions of people who have attention spans of less than 30 seconds. If she ever apologized or became polite, she would become boring and lose her appeal. Discarding her sharp edge would be the end of her.
LA replies:
Jeremy’s comment assumes that Coulter’s attacks on liberals have been successful. What is the evidence for that? Can he point to any liberal re-thinking process that has occurred as a result of Coulter’s calling Edwards a “faggot”? Can he point to a decline of the left’s reflexive anti-Americanism and hatred of conservatives and Christians as as a result of Coulter’s vulgar performances?
As far as I can see, Coulter has only succeeded in lowering the level of our culture even further—by lowering the standards of conservatives.
Rachael S. writes:
I have always liked Ann Coulter and I am troubled by her behavior as of late. She shouldn’t behave in ways that bring shame to herself and the conservative movement. But comparing her to Paris Hilton is a stretch; she isn’t stupid, she hasn’t made sex tapes, she isn’t a drug user (that anyone knows of). There are similarities in other ways (Paris Hilton is vain and often vulgar, Ann is apparently vain and sometimes vulgar) but you could just as easily compare Ann to other people in the media who are vain and vulgar …
Ann’s book about the Clinton scandal helped throw some light on an event that was consistently obfuscated by the liberal press; and her book Treason refuted myths about Joseph McCarthy and rehabilitated him somewhat—something very few conservatives would dare to do. Those two books were instances of Ann contributing in a serious way to conservatism, not debasing it. That is why I am so sad that she is behaving this way. She is can be perceptive, fearless, and very witty. The fact that liberals loathe Ann is not because she is vain and vulgar, it is because she has been so good at cutting them up in public.
But if she believes that the media has a double-standard, then she should know that by making flippant, easily misconstrued remarks she is “feeding the beast.” I think she might be going a little crazy, or losing her edge; like she wants to ruin her career. Imagine an Ann Coulter who dressed properly and avoided making those few disastrous comments. That Ann would be a godsend.
LA replies:
“The Paris Hilton of politics” was not my idea, it was used at the weblog that I linked at the beginning of this entry. Then, ironically, I found that Thomas Fleming had also called her “Paris Coulter.”
But I agree with Rachael’s general take. I get the feeling that Coulter’s ego has gotten so big she’s losing her balance and may be destroying herself.
Also, I did not mean to dismiss her real achievements. Her section on evolution in “Godless,” for example, is a worthwhile contribution. No one has ever skewered the Darwinian orthodoxy—treating it with a total lack of respect—has she has done.
Gintas writes:
Conservative men should be ashamed that they have become Coulter’s fanboys. I bet not one of them could stand being married to her, though. According to Wikipedia:
“Fanboy is a term used to describe an individual (usually male, though the feminine version fangirl may be used for females) who is utterly devoted to a single fannish subject, or to a single point of view within that subject, often to the point where it is considered an obsession. Fanboys remain loyal to their particular obsession, disregarding any factors that differ from their point of view. Fanboys are also typically aggressive and hateful towards the opposing brand or competition of their obsession regardless of its merits or achievements.”
American Cassandra writes:
Here is the full clip of Ann Coulter.
I think it is very clear she is NOT saying she wishes he would be killed in a terrorist attack. She is saying, people get far more upset over me making a joke over Edwards than Bill Maher saying he wants Cheney killed by a terrorist. (I have no idea whether Maher actually did, but if he did that’s not acceptable and she has a valid point about liberal double standards.) I didn’t think there was any way to interpret what she said other than the idea that for liberals, acceptable discourse is wishing someone you don’t like is being killed by a terrorist. It’s the classic everyone else does worse things defense. As you have pointed out, that’s not a good defense to the original offense, just like your mother always said. But the people who watched the clip in its entirety and are now saying that she said she wished John Edwards would die in a terrorist attack, as if she said it straight, I think may be dishonest rather than mistaken. Why don’t they just criticize her for being vulgar and leave it at that? If they twist what she says they just get other people to jump to her defense. And then she just gets even more and more attention! Meanwhile, she’s laughing all the way to the bank.
Ann Coulter is disappointing. She is genuinely smart and witty, and it is too bad she always chooses to take the low road. I do think she has a real gift, and I’m sorry she doesn’t use it in a better way. For instance, the comment about rehab, wasn’t just a random cheap shot at Edwards, but a jab that really fit with what was going on in Hollywood at the time, (I’m talking about the Isiah Washington story, which was last in a long list of stories of Hollywood stars checking into rehab in similar circumstances. Those rehab stories were ridiculous on several different levels.) I’m not defending her comment to you. Something can be clever and still be inappropriate, especially in the circumstances it was said, a supposedly serious convention. I’m saying what a waste!
Ultimately, I think it is because she isn’t in it for anything but the money and the attention. Does her act hurt the left or hurt the right? I don’t really know, after all, the left never seems to be hurt by this kind of vulgarity. But I think her main concern is whether it helps Ann Coulter. She doesn’t stand for real principles. It seems that if you want to find someone who stands up for principles, you need to look to lone bloggers toiling in obscurity with little in the way of financial awards.
LA replies:
That’s my take on her too: She’s in it primarily for the excitement, charge, fame, vanity, money. To paraphrase what James Garner said about money in The Wheeler Dealers, issues are just the way she keeps score.
Last month, after Coulter wrote a column criticizing America’s immigration policy for transforming us into a non-European country, I said this:
So why does she speak out now? One possibility is that she felt that in the current passionate climate triggered by the Bush-Kennedy bill it had become safe to do so; but, as explained above, I don’t think that’s the case. My own guess is that she doesn’t really care about the issue at all, because if she did, she would have said something about it during the last 13 years. So what I think is that the racial and cultural transformation of America is just one more issue to her, one more game on which to exercise her ego. In the past she didn’t see sufficient pay-off for herself in talking about it, but now that the issue is hot, she’s decided to jump in the pool, make a splash, and then (my prediction) not revisit the issue again.
* * *
A reader has sent the transcript and link of the Cuomo/Coulter interview on Good Morning America. Here’s the key part:
Chris Cuomo [CC]: All right, joining us now is political commentator Ann Coulter, whose book Godless: The Church of Liberalism is out in paperback—there it is [screen image of book]—a conservative’s conservative, she’s had some tough words lately for her own party, but to begin with the tough words, some tough words for you by the three top candidates in response to what you had said, some were calling it a homosexual slur, you said it was a taunt. They all came out when you were talking about John Edwards and said “this was wrong, we must deny it.” Fair criticism of you, or a shift towards the tolerant among the GOP?
AC: No, no, I was denounced all over, all over. I think the one that hurt the most was from ImALittleGirlInAPinkPartyDress.com; very upsetting. Though about the same time Bill Maher said—and by the way, I did not call John Edwards the f-word, I said I couldn’t talk about him because you go into rehab for using that word—
[LA comments: Coulter is playing games with words. Here is what Coulter said at the C-PAC conference:
“I was going to have a few comments on the other Democratic presidential candidate, John Edwards, but it turns out that you have to go into rehab if you use the word ‘faggot,’ so I’m—so, kind of at an impasse, can’t really talk about Edwards, so I think I’ll just conclude here and take your questions.”
She’s saying that she can’t talk about him because she can’t say “faggot.” Meaning, the only thing she has to say about him is that he’s a “faggot.” For her to deny that she called him a “faggot” is a lie.]
CC: You say you were joking?
AC: Oh yeah, I wouldn’t insult gays by comparing them to John Edwards. [LA: another cheap avoidance of the issue.] That would be mean. But about the same time, you know, Bill Maher was not joking and saying he wished Dick Cheney had been killed in a terrorist attack. So I’ve learned my lesson; if I’m going to say anything about John Edwards in the future, I’ll just wish he’d been killed in a terrorist assassination plot.
[LA: Saying that one wishes that a certain person was murdered is wrong, whether it’s being said seriously, or being said as a joke, or being said to make a point about something someone else said. Maher’s saying this disgraceful thing does not justify what Coulter says here.]
CC: So let’s get off of you, but let’s get your view of what’s going on with the party right now. You hear what the speculation is, you know what the poll numbers are. The talk is the party’s in trouble. How do you see it?
[LA: Well this Chris Cuomo is something, she drops her bomb and he just moves on to the next subject.]
AC: I don’t think so. I think the Democrats do start with a little bit of an advantage in the next presidential election because you always do if you’ve been out of power for eight years, but I do sort of get the sense now that there’s, you know, people reaching across the partisan divide, the country is unified. Bush really is a uniter, because we’re all just waiting for this nincompoop to be gone. I think we all finally are on the same page on that.
The interview then moves on to other topics.
Posted by Lawrence Auster at July 05, 2007 01:14 AM | Send