Home / The Ann Coulter Distraction

The Ann Coulter Distraction

Please Share...Print this pageTweet about this on TwitterShare on Facebook0Share on Google+0Pin on Pinterest0Share on Tumblr0Share on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

Though it hasn’t reached the volatility of the Hatfields and McCoys, the feud between presidential hopeful John Edwards and conservative columnist Ann Coulter is intensifying.

The latest salvo came from Edwards while on the campaign trail in Burlington, Iowa. While “rallying against the right-wing media,” Edwards referred to Coulter as a “she-devil.” He then caught himself and added, “I should not have name-called. But the truth is — forget the names — people like Ann Coulter, they engage in hateful language.”

Though the feud may make for interesting read or television viewing, it illustrates why Edwards is unfit for the presidency and should serve as a lesson for others whose lives come under public scrutiny.

Those in the public attract the attention of outspoken critics. Often these critics are simply people searching for attention; and the best advice to people with a following is to simply ignore them. Too often people running for office or in positions of power and authority let minor irritants bother them until those nuisances overshadow everything else.

Such is the case with the Edwards-Coulter feud. Their verbal sparing has gone on since March when Coulter jokingly used a derogatory term for homosexuals to describe Edwards behavior in a speech. Even though Coulter was lambasted for her remarks, Edwards didn’t let the remarks slide. Instead, his campaign posted Coulter’s remarks on its Web site, asking readers to “raise $100,000 in ‘Coulter Cash’ this week to keep this campaign charging ahead and fighting back against the politics of bigotry.” The two have been trading barbs in speeches, on television and in print ever since. Even Edwards’s wife, Elizabeth, has become part of the act when she called into Hardball and asked Coulter to stop the personal attacks on her husband and family.

Edwards may get some mileage out of Coulter’s remarks for fundraising, but the long-term effects of paying attention to Coulter are detrimental to his campaign.

Does anyone remember the message Edwards delivered in his Iowa speech? Nope. Instead of making headlines for his proposed agenda or vision of the future, all that came out of the speech was the continuation of his petty feud with a conservative bombshell.

The conservative columnist is hardly worth Edwards’s time. Coulter may be an engaging and proactive writer but her sphere of influence is with conservatives, not liberals. Her television appearances and weekly columns are unlikely to influence anyone on the left side of the political spectrum.  She appeals only to voters who already loathe Edwards and to no one whose vote he is actively courting.

Meanwhile, the blonde provocateur has nothing to lose in the exchange with Edwards. If anything, Edwards’ constant referrals to her bolster Coulter’s profile and show how much the columnist’s jabs irritate the presidential aspirant.

Edwards could learn a lesson from former Senator Fred Thomson. Earlier this year Fred Thompson wrote an article for National Review accusing filmmaker Michael Moore of being part of Fidel Castro’s propaganda machine. Moore shot back and challenged Thompson to a debate on healthcare. Instead of lowering himself to the controversial filmmaker’s level, Thompson responded with a short video clip that dismissed Moore as someone not worth further time or attention. The brouhaha immediately went away.

The lesson from the Edwards-Coulter feud is this: those in the public eye need to know when to ignore critics and detractors. Presidents are constantly under attack from the opposition and need to know when to respond to an attack and when to simply let it go. There was enough outrage against Coulter’s remarks that simply ignoring her would have done the greater damage to her career. Instead Edwards gave those on the right a reason to rally behind one of their own and make his presidential campaign look desperate for attention.

The fact that Edwards continues to take on Coulter even when it hinders his campaign makes him look weak. In the end, it shows how unfit for the presidency he really is.

Powered by

About Abel Keogh

  • Personally, I hate to love Ann Coulter. Hate, I say.

    But still I do. She is in fact quite effective in taking Edwards apart. “Faggot” may be a simplistic schoolyard taunt, but it absolutely sticks to Edwards. And that he’s got to send his sick wife out to deal with a mere opinion columnist only re-inforces her charges.

    As Mr Keogh says, Coulter mostly is read and regarded highly only by hardcore rightwing nutjobs such as me. But Edwards and all the liberal netroots crowd are amplifying and taking her message out to a much broader public than would read her directly.

    He thinks he’s cleverly exploiting one of the top couple of most hated rightwingers in the country by raising “Coulter cash.” Thing is, the word and meaning that he’s endlessly repeating are in fact a perfect capsule criticism of him, and will stick with most people who hear it, except for the most chauvinistic of left wingers.

    Look, if the blow dried pretty boy trial lawyer is struggling to cope with a skinny girl who writes a newspaper column, how’s he going to cope with bad guys as president? Will he deal with Iranian nukes by filing a big ol’ class action lawsuit?

  • Dr Dreadful

    Coulter is a cynical exhibitionist who displays the extreme arrogance and pseudo-superiority all too common among conservatives.

    Her only redeeming quality seems to be her predilection for getting stoned out of her brain and then appearing on Hannity and Colmes.

    But Abel is right: Edwards has far better things to do than waste his time on such trash.

  • Coulter is a brat who needs a firm spanking!

  • Dr Dreadful

    Now, now, Ray. Sit down, take a few deep breaths and drink a glass of water.

    If that doesn’t work, then it’s into a cold shower for you.

  • Brad Schader

    Ann Coulter is scum, but that is no great secret. She had made millions off her being unapologetic scum. Hell, I don’t believe she believes half of what she says so much as she just loves pushing buttons. Edwards however wants to be President. She has not lowered herself one inch by taking him on, but he has lowered himself miles to do this “tit-for-tat” with her. Anyone who would vote for him has never given her a second thought and anyone who follows her would never give him one.

    I hate to say it, but Coulter wins this contest simply by Edwards showing up.

  • REMF

    I would like to see Ann Coulter and Laura Schlessinger in a lesbian love scene, though.

  • troll

    you are sick…and I mean that in the most therapeutic way

  • Dr Dreadful

    AAAAGGHHH!!! My eyes!! My eyes!!!

  • Brad Schader

    There is a mental picture that is not going to go away for quite some time.

  • We could make the picture even more disturbing with three words : six inch heels.

  • Ray, when spanking Coulter gets you excited you can just look at her adam’s apple to get yourself under control.


  • STM

    Ray said: “Coulter is a brat who needs a firm spanking!”

    And of course, Ray should be the one to deliver it!

    But, mate, can I watch?

  • STM

    What Dave, you’re saying the big feet aren’t a giveway?

  • STM

    Doc wrote: “Now, now, Ray. Sit down, take a few deep breaths and drink a glass of water”.

    Come on Doc, we all know what he really needs is a nice cuppa.

  • alessandro nicolo

    #6 – yeah, that’s what I’m talkin’ ’bout. For spice, add Huffington.

  • steve

    edwards is weak…I completely agree that coulter has taken some steam away from his campaign. hopefully, americans will also see how edwards pays more attention to petty b.s. rather than what actually matters. ann coulter is a stand-up woman in my eyes. cheers to a fellow conservative nutmegger!

  • Silver Surfer

    I love the title of coulter’s book up there … if democrats had any brains, they’d be republicans.

    If republicans had any brains, they’d be REALLY dangerous.

  • Clavos


  • RJ

    I do not understand the attraction to Ann Coulter.

    Er, let me restate that. I can certainly understand why conservatives are attracted to her columns and books. She’s a superb writer, and her hyperbolic partisanship is simply hilarious. Every column is delicious red meat.

    But I simply do not see her as being physically attractive.

    Sorry, but I’m not into gangly, awkward, anorexic, middle-aged women. Hell, Rich Lowry is more feminine than Ann Coulter. And I wouldn’t **** him, either. :-/

  • It’s not a matter of attraction, RJ. The fact remains she’s a brat who deserves a firm spanking. What I don’t understand is how you could consider her “a superb writer.” Attractions come in all forms, I guess.

  • Baronius

    RJ, I’m on the same page as you. But I haven’t heard much conservative obsession with her attractiveness. There’s a huge liberal obsession with labelling her unattractive, though.

    I’ve noticed a few conservatives who savage Hillary Clinton on her looks. They creep me out.

  • REMF

    “Hell, I don’t believe she believes half of what she says so much as she just loves pushing buttons.”
    – Brad Schader

    I agree there, except probably more like two-thirds. Coulter is definitely another one of those conservative chickenhawk phonies.

  • I thought you were banned from using hat word!

  • Ann fan

    I wonder why she is taking on Edwards? Isn’t Hillama a greater threat?

    P.S. Ann is hella sexy.

  • Quite simple, Ann fan. Coulter never takes on people who could chew her up and spit her out without breaing a sweat. Edwards is still a trial lawyer at heart, and he loves a good brawl. Coulter is beneath the notice of Clinton or Obama. That leaves Coulter defenseless– the fallen tree that nobody hears.

  • who cares what she looks like? she’s ugly on the inside.

  • Ray you said she isn’t worth the notice of Hillary?

    Have you forgotten how Hillary attaked Ann after Godless was out out?

    Have you forgotten that John Kerry attacked Ann Coulter on the SENATE FLOOR!?

    People like you and your beloved representatives couldn’t make it through the day without thinking about Ann Coulter and dreaming of the day that you might actually wake up with a coherent argument against the basic ideals that her and other conservatives have always stuck to.

    So to compensate you pick apart a few words, college liberals throw pies at her, and John Edwards uses her “hate” to raise cash.

    These not-so-clever tactics are working solely because you have the MSM on your side. But miraculously, America is waking up on its own thanks to the internet and talk radio.

  • america is becoming more stupid thanks to talk radio.

  • Ann Coulter’s ouvre is tantamount to an oozing puss bag.

  • “becoming”?

  • “Ann Coulter and Laura Schlessinger”? Nah, how about Ann Coulter vs Natalie Maines? That’d be a great fight/makeup/makeout session. Or the ultimate: Coulter vs Hillary! I’d pay good money to see that love fest.

    I note that in these comments as in most attacks on Coulter, there’s nothing but general invective and insults about her looks. Those insults from her enemies read more like testimonials in denial. How can this evil bitch be so hot?

  • Franco

    “Those insults from her enemies read more like testimonials in denial.”

    Classic observation!

    The amount of attention the left pays to her is astounding too. Do a google just using her name. The results are at least a 3 to 1 ratio of liberal blogs and websites compared to conservative sites. It would attest that Ann Coulter as become the left’s public enemy number one.

    Anybody notice a tremendously delicious hypocrisy on these liberal blogs about hate speech? Isn’t it somewhat absurd to speak ill of someone for speaking ill of someone? What’s that old saying about the pot and the kettle?

    BRAINS: Coulter was trained as a lawyer, and she does have an understanding of the rules of evidence.

    Coulter is a best-selling author, and you do not get your picture on Time if you’re not effecting the masses.

    LOOKS: On how hot this she-devil is, well a picture is worth a thousand words.

  • coulter is very, very smart. and has made herself rich by pedaling her half-truths, insults, inaccuracies and outright lies as red meat to hungry conservative mouths.

    this isn’t to say that there aren’t liberal versions of her, as there certainly are.

    the sad thing is that this type of ‘discourse’ gets us exactly the type of government we deserve.

    it’s what happens when you treat half of the citizenry as the enemy.

  • ruff

    Ann Coulter has already had way past her 15 minutes of fame. It is time to ignore her. Please go away now!

  • Dan

    Did you ever notice how liberals only attack Ann for insensitive or insulting remarks?

    That’s because they can’t refute her command of the facts.

    Her books are a devastating critique on liberalism, historic and contemporary. Obsessively vetted, and foot-noted to the extreme, these vessels of truth are like holy water to vampires.

    Naturally the only recourse for scoundrals is to turn victim. Scoundrals playing victim is the heart and soul of liberal politicians. And a large portion of their constituency.

    Certainly Ann has some classical beauty, and obvious charm.

    Liberals hate that. They’re always wanting reality to conform to their comforting, Disney world view, where their snow white, and little mermaid, outshine even the most appealing incarnations the evil witch, and sea goddess can conjure up.

  • alessandro nicolo

    #20: “The fact remains she’s a brat who deserves a firm spanking.”

    Let’s apply this to Maureen Dowd also.

    In fact, add her to the threesome.

  • Obsessively vetted, and foot-noted to the extreme,…

    the colossal amount of errors in her footnotes are very well documented. the problem is that her supporters will never admit this.

    …and this same denial goes on on the liberal side as well with their favorite writers.

    it’s pathetic.

  • Egbert Sousé

    “That’s because they can’t refute her command of the facts.”

    Dan, feel free to google “ann coulter errors” and then get back to us before you continue to embarrass yourself.

  • RJ

    I wonder if Ann Coulter’s “errors” are as systemic as Michael Moore’s lies.

  • Egbert Sousé

    I’d be more concerned about the lies of the Bush administration which the link mentions.

  • Here’s the thing Mark and Egbert, it takes more than repeating adamantly that Coulter (or Bush) is lying or dishonest. It takes more than claiming that it is supposedly well documented. No, to make that stuff stick, you would actually have to document it. Here’s her quote from page xxx of this books she wrote, and here’s the proof that the statement was wrong. And that takes more than a couple of quibbling errors in the footnotes.

    One significant difference between Coulter vs Moore is that Coulter doesn’t just make crap up and routinely grossly misrepresent facts as Moore is happy to do. She just doesn’t. She sometimes has a stilted take on things, or overgeneralizes. I take her ideological partisanship with a grain of salt. But it’s a false comparison to say that she’s like Moore.

  • Egbert Sousé

    Luckily for Ann and Bush, there are people intellectually lazy and dishonest like Al to make their tasks easier. The information is out there, but since you don’t want to do your own research, it somehow doesn’t exist.

    When they taught you in school that the Earth orbited the Sun, did you ask your teacher for his/her documentation on the matter rather than relying on the well documented science of others? When you go to the doctor, do you ask for his/her personal laboratory results on how the medicine works?

    Tell you what, here’s two easy ones you can spin on and deny to your heart’s content.

    In her Time magazine profile, Ann is quoted as saying “I was wrong when I said the NYT didn’t mention Dale Earnhardt’s death on the front page the day after his death.”

    The administration lied about how much the Prescription Drug Bill would cost and threatened Richard Foster. I don’t have the documentation, but this reporter from National Review does.

  • No, to make that stuff stick, you would actually have to document it.

    that is complete and utter bullshit. look it up yourself. nah, don’t bother. you won’t believe it when you read it anyway.

    me, i know ann makes things up…and michael moore, and huffington, and, etc….

  • Ann’s cabana boy

    Any journalist too conservative for National Review gets my vote. But at least with her gone from NR they can put in that poetry section dedicated to Wal Mart the editors have been wanting to put in. Here’s one-

    An Ode

    “I think that I shall never chart
    A poem lovely as a Wal Mart”

  • Zedd

    Ann Coulter is the best thing for the country.

    As with everything, you have to hit rock bottom before realizing that you need to change.

    She’s America’s rock bottom.

    Edwards is young (and a stud) he’ll be fine.

  • Clavos

    “When you go to the doctor, do you ask for his/her personal laboratory results on how the medicine works?”

    Not their personal lab results, that’s silly.

    But I damn sure ask a LOT of questions like: Why this medicine? What is the up side? Down side? Side effects? What are the alternatives?

    And if I don’t like the answers, I refuse it and ask for different therapy.

    Doctors are people. They make mistakes, are not necessarily smarter than me, and don’t necessarily have the same objectives for my treatment that I do.

  • RJ

    When they taught you in school that the Earth orbited the Sun, did you ask your teacher for his/her documentation on the matter rather than relying on the well documented science of others?

    Well, teachers provide these things called textbooks, and textbooks generally contain these things called citations…

    When you go to the doctor, do you ask for his/her personal laboratory results on how the medicine works?

    Doctors and pharmacists are usually happy to provide details on the empirically-tested efficacy of medications, and information on contraindications and such are readily available in printed form for those who request them when filling their prescriptions…

    In her Time magazine profile, Ann is quoted as saying “I was wrong when I said the NYT didn’t mention Dale Earnhardt’s death on the front page the day after his death.”

    Wow. That sure is damning. Ann Coulter publicly admitting to an utterly inconsequential error is certainly proof that she’s a monstrous liar…

  • RJ

    Ann Coulter, in her own words:

    It’s interesting that the most devastating examples of my alleged “lies” keep changing. As soon as one is disproved, I’m asked to respond to another. This is behavior normally associated with conspiracy theorists in tinfoil hats. One crackpot argument after another is shot down-but the conspiracy theorists just move on to the next crackpot argument without pause or reconsideration. Certainly without apology.

    Here are a few of the alleged “lies” that I have already responded to-and which were then dropped by the Coulter hysterics as they barreled ahead to the next inane charge.

    * Franken’s very first charge against me is that I told a reporter from the Observer that I was “friendly” with Franken, when in fact, we are not “friendly” Needless to say, I never claimed to be friendly with Al Franken. Inasmuch as I barely know Franken, a normal person might have looked at that and realized the reporter misunderstood me. But apparently Franken thinks he has a pretty cool name to drop-the oddest case of reverse name-dropping I’ve ever heard of.

    I don’t hear about this “lie” so much anymore.

    * Franken hysterically accuses me of “lying” for calling my endnotes “footnotes” in interviews on my book. Yes, notes at the end of a book are technically “endnotes,” not “footnotes.” Franken will have to take his case up with The New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, The Washington Post and the rest of the universe-all of which referred to my 780 endnotes as “footnotes.” Also, God, for inventing the concept of “colloquial speech.” I don’t hear so much about this “lie” anymore.

    * Franken claims I complain that conservatives don’t get on TV enough. Inasmuch as I am on TV a lot, this would be a hilarious point. Too bad I never said it. My book Slander-which Franken seems to have gone over with a fine-toothed comb-would have been a good place to make that point if I wanted to make it. Slander contains an entire chapter on the media, and yet I never claim that conservatives are not on TV enough. What I say is “Democrats in the media are editors, national correspondents, news anchors and reporters. Republicans are ‘from the right’ polemicists grudgingly tolerated within the liberal behemoth.”

    By the way, I also say: “The distinction between opinion journalism and objective news coverage is seemingly impossible for liberals to grasp.” Franken’s absurd description of my point proves it.

    I haven’t heard so much about this “lie” anymore.

    * I claim Evan Thomas’ father was the Socialist Party presidential candidate Norman Thomas. Franken drones on and on for a page and a half about how Norman Thomas was not Evan Thomas’ father-without saying that he was Evan’s grandfather. This was one of about five inconsequential errors quickly corrected in Slander-and cited one million times by liberals as a “lie.” Confusing “father” with “grandfather” is a mistake. Franken’s deliberate implication that there was no relationship whatsoever between Norman and Evan Thomas is intentional dishonesty. I haven’t heard so much about this “lie” anymore.

    * I incorrectly claimed Dale Earnhardt’s death was not mentioned on the front page of The New York Times the day after his death. (In my three best-selling books-making the case for a President’s impeachment, accusing liberals of systematic lying and propagandizing, arguing that Joe McCarthy was a great American patriot, and detailing 50 years of treachery by the Democratic Party-his is the only vaguely substantive error the Ann Coulter hysterics have been able to produce, corrected soon after publication. Congratulations, Liberals!!!

    The Columbia Journalism Review was crowing about this great victory over Ann Coulter a year ago. A search of “Coulter” and “Earnhardt” on Google turns up more than 1,000 hits. Now Franken dedicates another two pages in his book to it. I believe this triumph of theirs has been sufficiently revisited by now. At least I didn’t miss the Ukrainian famine-cf. Pulitzer Prize-winning New York Times reporter Walter Duranty. I don’t hear so much about this “lie” anymore.

    So…what other “lies” has she published?

  • Dan

    good post RJ.

    The weatherman said it was going to warm up to 90 degrees yesterday. It only made it to 89. Damn liar.

    The pettiness of the Earnheart/front page “lie” illustrates perfectly the frustration liberals have. Obviously, they don’t have any substantive, actual lies to point to.

    It’s depressing what some folks will do to avoid confronting truth.

  • Egbert Sousé

    Of course, it’s insubstantial when it proves the point. Here’s another meaningless lie by Ann.

    On a 2003 episode of Hardball she claimed that George C Scott refused his Oscar for Patton because the movie was “intended to make Patton look terrible” and then claimed what she was saying was “well known.” Shockingly to some and to no surprise to others, she was wrong as Scott’s reasons had to do with his distaste for the Oscars ceremony.

    I don’t have the time or desire to find another lie, the internet is full of this stuff, but keep your head in the sand and you won’t have to worry about it. If she can’t get the easy stuff right, why should we trust her on the difficult topics?

  • Dan

    Egbert: “If she can’t get the easy stuff right, why should we trust her on the difficult topics?”

    Because liberals can’t dispute the difficult topics (ie. the things they’re really, really upset about, as documented in her books)?

  • Dr Dreadful

    This whole thread is an Ann Coulter distraction. In fact, Abel probably is Ann Coulter.

  • Egbert Souse and Dan are not likely to convince each other, even a millimeter’s worth, eh?

    There is a distinction to be made between AC the writer and AC the scary insane lady on TV. Her prose can actually [sometimes] seem intelligent or at least well composed. Her ranting on television shows her for what she is: a failed comedian, a shrieking narcissist, a phony. She plays a character called “Ann Coulter.” I have my doubts about whether she even believes half the things she says. It’s all for effect, and for money.

    [See former right-wing hit-man David Brock’s excellent book “Blinded by the Right” for more along this line. Brock also documents multiple instances of plagiarism by AC here.]

  • Baronius

    Why do people always say that Ann, Rush, or whoever doesn’t believe half the things they say? I don’t know if it’s supposed to be a backhanded compliment, that they seem too smart to hold the beliefs they claim to. Maybe it’s a way of insulting their fans. Either way, I have complete confidence that Al Franken believes all the nonsense he spouts.

  • REMF

    “Why do people always say that Ann, Rush, or whoever doesn’t believe half the things they say?”
    – Baronius

    “Never trust a draft dodger.”
    – Rush Limbaugh
    (who received a medical deferment from Vietnam for a cyst on his ass)

  • In “Blinded by the Right,” David Brock recounts conversations with fellow conservative loudmouths in which they freely admitted their rhetoric and their actual opinions were two different things. They were soldiers for a cause and the cause was more important than their individual opinions – or, more cynically, becoming a media personality was more important than integrity.

    His book is 4 or 5 years old now, but it still accurately nails the shouting-heads form of discourse that has since spilled over into the blogosphere. It’s brilliant and a must-read, whatever your persuasion.

    And I’m sure there are plenty of similar examples on the left…but Al Franken is primarily a humorist, and rarely stoops to the crass cruelty of Coulter’s lowest stuff. He likes to goose Bill O’Reilly and other windbags, but who wouldn’t? They’ve earned it.

  • Baronius

    Brock is a particular type of political figure. Like Dick Morris and Anderson’s old advisor (I forget his name). They are almost always closeted gays or hiding some sexual secret. They delight in betraying their old bosses. Invariably, they’re hatchet men on one side, then even bigger hatchet men on the other. REMF will be pleased to know that Brock is an admitted liar. But when they change sides, now they’re telling the real truth – which turns out to be more over-the-top than their old lies.

  • I was under the impression that David Brock is quite out about being gay. It did play a role in his change of political heart, but he’s not currently in the closet.

    Could you show me some examples of Media Matters being over the top? He can be sort of literal sometimes, but I wouldn’t call the site over the top.

  • RJ

    “In “Blinded by the Right,” David Brock recounts conversations with fellow conservative loudmouths in which they freely admitted their rhetoric and their actual opinions were two different things.”

    Gee, admitted liar and back-stabber David Brock wouldn’t happen to have any evidence to back up his claims about these supposed conversations, would he? Say, audio or video recordings? Or are we just expected to take the word of an admitted liar and back-stabber totally on faith?

  • Baronius

    David Stockman. That was driving me crazy.

    Collier and Horowitz are also militantly one side after having been militantly on the other. No sexual thing there, as far as I know. But that retaliatory fervor is troubling.

  • Dan

    I don’t think of Media Matters as being over the top. They just use a low intensity sophistry throughout.

    If your paradigm of what qualifies as journalistic integrity has shifted leftward, you’ll probably go for it.

    One example that was discussed here, was a time when MM offered a more egregious example of Ann C’s lying than those previous examples from Egbert.

    In this one, Ann was supposed to have said that when polled, hispanic citizens in California were in favor of prop 287. MM had a poll that said they weren’t. Thus MM claimed that AC was lying, while neglecting to mention that Ann’s claim was made in reference to a different poll.

    Both poll’s were running pretty close to an even split, but the MM poll was probably more accurate, because it was an exit poll.

    Still, the earlier poll that Ann used, was a valid statistical marker, and was media prominent. Possibly, the only one available to her at the time she wrote about the matter.

    So for those who are inclined to think that Ann Coulter Conservatives are “blinded”. What are we supposed to do with stuff like this?

    She can be mean as hell, I’ll give you. Specially if your ox is being gored.

    And that theatrical personna she employs is partly due to a nervous defensive mechanism. Certainly a normal aggressiveness when your writing from a viewpoint that angers so many.

    Anyhow, I don’t mean it as an insult to give the view that some of you are similarly, “blinded” in ideology. I actually long for things to agree on.

    It’s probably a weakness to be 100% on anything. Show me some really devious trickery from Ann, and I’m on board.

    Just need to see it.

  • To me, someone willing to say publicly “I was wrong and I acted like an asshole” is not automatically a ‘serial liar.’ I believe his honesty about his past actually strengthens David Brock’s arguments and speaks well of his character.

    RJ repeats a bogus argument [it’s always couched in suspiciously identical phrasing, too] that is used against Brock by people who can’t be bothered to read or refute his writings more specifically.

    Of course you don’t like what he says – he disagrees with you and dismantles right-wing frauds and blowhards, with precise and effective example and argument. If you can dismiss him as a liar or over the top, you obviously haven’t read his stuff.

  • Baronius

    Handy, I read his old stuff. That makes it hard to trust him.

  • If you feel that way, fine, but his entire “Blinded” book is an autobiographical journey: how he came to write the Anita Hill and Bill Clinton attack pieces, and how he came to have a change of heart [not unrelated to his decision to come out of the closet].

    It’s detailed, emotional, pretty damn convincing stuff…and I think I have a fairly sensitive bullshit detector. Sure, it’s easy to write people off as self-serving, but the proof is in his writing.

  • REMF

    “Gee, admitted liar and back-stabber David Brock wouldn’t happen to have any evidence to back up his claims about these supposed conversations, would he? Say, audio or video recordings? Or are we just expected to take the word of an admitted liar and back-stabber totally on faith?”

    In other words you believe Limbaugh is honest and genuine….


  • alxnsc

    Some price quotation:
    “If Democrats Had Any Brains, They’d Be Republicans (Hardcover)
    by Ann Coulter (Author)
    List Price: $24.95
    Price: $14.97
    You save 40%”
    My comment:
    “Not exactly. You save about 36%, but if you have some mind you may save 100%, for sure…”