Ms Right... For Arlos

[Azlana]

I want to slap her..but then I think it's a show to make a lot of money. Ann Coulter is like the Alice Cooper of right wing conservatives. People are loving the extremism and buy the hell out of her books.

[mofish]

Yeah its sad. I said I wouldnt go on, but I found this gem, I had to post it.

She used to be employed by the National Review Online. Coulter wrote a column, the source of one of her gems from above post, wherein she called upon America to invade Muslim countries and convert them to Christianity. Then she wrote another column--whose original words seem in dispute--which meandered upon the same lines. National Review Online ran the first column, but did not publish the second. At which point NRO and Coulter parted ways. She loudly claimed censorship; they said editorial judgement. Here's the editor's letter explaining his side.


October 3, 2001

Dear Readers,

As many of you may have heard, we've dropped Ann Coulter's column from NRO [National Reviw Online]. This has sparked varying amounts of protest, support, and, most of all, curiosity from our readers. We owe you an explanation.

Of course, we would explain our decision to Ann, but the reality is that she's called the shots from the get-go. It was Ann who decided to sever her ties with National Review -- not the other way around.

This is what happened.

In the wake of her invade-and-Christianize-them column, Coulter wrote a long, rambling rant of a response to her critics that was barely coherent. She's a smart and funny person, but this was Ann at her worst -- emoting rather than thinking, and badly needing editing and some self-censorship, or what is commonly referred to as "judgment."

Running this "piece" would have been an embarrassment to Ann, and to NRO. Rich Lowry pointed this out to her in an e-mail (I was returning from my honeymoon). She wrote back an angry response, defending herself from the charge that she hates Muslims and wants to convert them at gunpoint.

But this was not the point. It was NEVER the point. The problem with Ann's first column was its sloppiness of expression and thought. Ann didn't fail as a person -- as all her critics on the Left say -- she failed as WRITER, which for us is almost as bad.

Rich wrote her another e-mail, engaging her on this point, and asking her -- in more diplomatic terms -- to approach the whole controversy not as a PR-hungry, free-swinging pundit on Geraldo, but as a careful writer.

No response.

Instead, she apparently proceeded to run around town bad-mouthing NR and its employees. Then she showed up on TV and, in an attempt to ingratiate herself with fellow martyr Bill Maher, said we were "censoring" her.

By this point, it was clear she wasn't interested in continuing the relationship.

What publication on earth would continue a relationship with a writer who would refuse to discuss her work with her editors? What publication would continue to publish a writer who attacked it on TV? What publication would continue to publish a writer who lied about it -- on TV and to a Washington Post reporter?

And, finally, what CONSERVATIVE publication would continue to publish a writer who doesn't even know the meaning of the word "censorship"?

So let me be clear: We did not "fire" Ann for what she wrote, even though it was poorly written and sloppy. We ended the relationship because she behaved with a total lack of professionalism, friendship, and loyalty.

What's Ann's take on all this? Well, she told the Washington Post yesterday that she loves it, because she's gotten lots of great publicity. That pretty much sums Ann up.

On the Sean Hannity show yesterday, however, apparently embarrassed by her admission to the Post, she actually tried to deny that she has sought publicity in this whole matter. Well, then, Ann, why did you complain of being "censored" on national TV? Why did you brag to the Post about all the PR?

Listening to Ann legalistically dodge around trying to explain all this would have made Bill Clinton blush.

Ann also told the Post that we only paid her $5 a month for her work (would that it were so!). Either this is a deliberate lie, or Ann needs to call her accountant because someone's been skimming her checks.

Many readers have asked, why did we run the original column in which Ann declared we should "invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity" -- if we didn't like it.

Well, to be honest, it was a mistake. It stemmed from the fact this was a supposedly pre-edited syndicated column, coming in when NRO was operating with one phone line and in general chaos. Our bad.

Now as far as Ann's charges go, I must say it's hard to defend against them, because they either constitute publicity-minded name-calling, like calling us "girly-boys" -- or they're so much absurd bombast.

For example:

Ann -- a self-described "constitutional lawyer" -- volunteered on Politically Incorrect that our "censoring" of her column was tantamount to "repealing the First Amendment." Apparently, in Ann's mind, she constitutes the thin blonde line between freedom and tyranny, and so any editorial decision she dislikes must be a travesty.
She sniffed to the Washington Post's Howard Kurtz that "Every once in awhile they'll [National Review] throw one of their people to the wolves to get good press in left-wing publications." I take personal offense to this charge. She's accusing us of betraying a friend for publicity, when in fact it was the other way around.
And, lastly, this "Joan of Arc battling the forces of political correctness" act doesn't wash. In the same 20 days in which Ann says -- over and over and over again -- that NR has succumbed to "PC hysteria," we've run pieces celebrating every PC shibboleth and bogeyman.
Paul Johnson has criticized Islam as an imperial religion. William F. Buckley himself has called, essentially, for a holy war. Rich Lowry wants to bring back the Shah, and I've written that Western Civilization has every right to wave the giant foam "We're Number 1!" finger as high as it wants.
The only difference between what we've run and what Ann considers so bravely iconoclastic on her part, is that we've run articles that accord persuasion higher value than shock value. It's true: Ann is fearless, in person and in her writing. But fearlessness isn't an excuse for crappy writing or crappier behavior.
To be honest, even though there's a lot more that could be said, I have no desire to get any deeper into this because, like with a Fellini movie, the deeper you get, the less sense Ann makes.

We're delighted that FrontPageMagazine has, with remarkable bravery, picked up Ann's column, presumably for only $5 a month. They'll be getting more than what they're paying for, I'm sure.

-- Jonah Goldberg

[Diekan]

And, finally, what CONSERVATIVE publication would continue to publish a writer who doesn't even know the meaning of the word "censorship"?

That line made me

[Tikker]

I can't believe that people actually believe in what she's preaching

[Jimmy Durante]

From the May 11 Savage Nation:

"Nick Berg, an American, not military, over there building transmission towers, was captured by the Untermenschen the sub-humans, who wrap themselves in a religion."

I like how he throws in the German for a nice little neonazi touch. Classy.

Not to mention ironic, considering his real name is Michael Weiner and he's a Jew

[brinstar]

those two people make me ashamed of my country

[Ginzburgh]

btw:

Ann Coulter, (860) 388-2684, 12 Edwards Rd, Old Saybrook, CT 06475

It's peanut butta jelly time baby ~

[Rust]

http://demburns.dailykos.com/story/2005/2/1/84811/76485

I watched the video when it happened. It's hilarious.

http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/sticksandstones.html

--R.

[Captain Insano]

Ann is a fucking nutcase, I'd fuck the crazy out of her though...

hey do you guys think that if Ann showed up in finawin's ghost proof bedroom naked and wanting finawin would actually do her?

I think this is the most important issue of this thread.

[Narrock]

When I hear Michael Savage and Ann Coulter I just want to stand on a pedestal and sing in my loudest tenor voice, "And I'm proud to be an American, where at least I know I'm free. And I won't forget the men that died, that gave that right to me, and I'll gladly stand up next to you and defend her still today, cuz there ain't no doubt I love this land... God bless the USA."

Michael Savage owns. Bottom line.

[brinstar]

when i hear michael savage and ann coulter i just want to go out and find people standing on pedestals singing patriotic songs and dump buckets of fresh warm goat afterbirth all over them

[Narrock]

when i hear michael savage and ann coulter i just want to go out and find people standing on pedestals singing patriotic songs and dump buckets of fresh warm goat afterbirth all over them

That would be the last thing you would do for a very long time.

[brinstar]

is that a threat, bubba?

[mofish]

It sounds like it. Mindia the e-thug. You better be careful though dude, he might be all tweaked out on meth. He also might still be singing 'Im proud to be an American' which would probably instantly disintegrate your eardrums.

[BillyBob]

Ann Coulter is hideously ugly and a fucking bitch. Also, I am pro-choice, but not after the first trimester, for the record. Late term should be, and is (pretty much everywhere right???) illegal, and should be. If you couldn't make up your mind in three months, tough shit.

In partial-birth abortions 20% of these abortions are for genetic reasons and the other 80% are purely elective. Partial-birth abortions can only be performed when the baby or mother has a medical condition. If the mother is depressed about being pregnant she qualifies for partial-birth abortion. Partial-birth abortions are legal through full term if they qualify medically. (Depression)

Most partial-birth abortions are done on babies that have nerves and can feel pain. It is a proven fact that babies that receive partial-birth abortions are more sensitive to pain than adults.

Ron Fitzsimmons, executive director of the National Coalition of Abortion Providers says there are 5,000 partial-birth abortions per year and they are primarily done on healthy fetuses of healthy women.

I state only facts. Below are my sources. Good day.

http://www.str.org/free/commentaries/ab ... saliar.htm
http://www.cirtl.org/abfacts.htm
http://www.alliance4lifemin.org/categor ... ortion.htm
http://www.cirtl.org/partial.htm
http://www.priestsforlife.org/magisteri ... lspba.html

Here are a few pictures of some late term abortions.
http://www.priestsforlife.org/resources ... thumbnails

[Narrock]

is that a threat, bubba?

Not a threat. Just the facts.

[Narrock]

It sounds like it. Mindia the e-thug. You better be careful though dude, he might be all tweaked out on meth. He also might still be singing 'Im proud to be an American' which would probably instantly disintegrate your eardrums.

I'm high on life. I don't need drugs.

[Eziekial]

Just in case those with weak constitutions are thinking about clicking on BillyBob's last link to the pictures, here is your tip for the day:

DON'T DO IT!

Have a great day.

[Ginzburgh]

When I hear Michael Savage and Ann Coulter I just want to stand on a pedestal and sing in my loudest tenor voice, "And I'm proud to be an American, where at least I know I'm free. And I won't forget the men that died, that gave that right to me, and I'll gladly stand up next to you and defend her still today, cuz there ain't no doubt I love this land... God bless the USA."

That redneck song makes me want to vomit all over you.

[brinstar]

dude come on quit copping my gig

warm goat afterbirth is way more gross than barf

[Treehorn]

Not as gross as if you first drank the afterbirth, then vomited it~

[brinstar]

beaten