> Taylor Marsh: 'Ann Coulter's beautiful big money smear machine'
>
> Taylor Marsh, Yahoo
>
> When I saw the latest insanity in The New Republic, "A Defense of Ann
> Coulter" by Elspeth Reeve, I knew it was time to let fly my latest piece.
> Reeve's article is a beauty. That is if you like pimping for the
> Republicans' prime propagandist.
> Yes, yes, Coulter has said some terrible things. But I don't think it's
> the terrible things that really bother liberals. Coulter makes us cringe
> not
> when she lies, but when she says things we wish weren't true. ...
> If you're really looking for the truth about Ann Coulter, I suggest you
> read
> on.
>
> On the YAF site selling the Ann Coulter poster, this is the description:
> The
> Beauty of Conservatism, Ann Coulter - best-selling author, witty
> columnist,
> and compelling speaker - proves it is possible to be beautiful,
> intelligent,
> and conservative. It's important to note a couple of things. First, they
> describe her columns as "witty." Secondly, that "beautiful" comes before
> either "intelligent" or "conservative." Witty and beautiful are her top
> commodities in the YAF "marketplace". But it's the whole package
> conservatives are taking to the bank, no matter how wrong their right-wing
> diva can be.
>
>
>
>
> "I think [Whitewater]'s going to prevent the First Lady from running for
> Senate."--- Ann Coulter on Rivera Live 3/12/99
> YAF has been around for a long time, as many of you know. Their major
> issues
> include: combating "racial preferences," also known as affirmative action;
> feminism, communism and Marxism, and "diversity." "Quacks" bother them,
> fascism not so much.
> "My libertarian friends are probably getting a little upset now but I
> think that's because they never appreciate the benefits of local
> fascism."--- Ann Coulter on MSNBC, 2/8/97
> For the longest time, Phyllis Schlafly, then Dr. Laura, were the poster
> girls for the conservative right. My brother debated Schlafly back in
> Missouri during the ERA days. She may make a good case, but she's nothing
> to
> look at, though back then that was no crime. However, in the new age of TV
> glamour, cool and celebrity, the conservatives were being out distanced by
> a
> mile. So what's a conservative party to do? Find some way to make
> conservatism cool. It was post Reagan, when Bush 41 just didn't cut it,
> with
> the rise of Bill Clinton, who was as cool a political conglomerate as we'd
> ever seen. Something had to be done.
> "I am emboldened by my looks to say things Republican men wouldn't."---
> Ann Coulter in TV Guide 8/97
>
> "Originally, I was the only female with long blonde hair. Now, they all
> have long blonde hair."--- Ann Coulter - CapitolHillBlue.com 6/6/00
> Ann Coulter was made in the 1990s, as was her right-wing blonde book-end
> Laura Ingraham, who recently clucked that journalists should get off of
> their hotel balconies and report the Iraq war; a war that is the deadliest
> conflict for journalists since WWII. As for Coulter, even though all of
> her
> animosity was directed towards President Bill Clinton and First Lady
> Hillary, she actually owes her fortunes to Bad boy Bill, and the advent of
> 24-hour cable, which needed talking heads to ramble on about all things
> Clinton. Ann was always ready to oblige.
>
> Basically, Ms. Coulter isn't so much about important issues as she is a
> political ambulance chaser. She goes to the scene of news to capture the
> hyperbole and then offers her special brand of huff 'n puff for the
> president's party, which assures her noise gets covered. She's also
> willing
> to say things no one else would dare utter and gets away with it; all
> because she's a girl. This picture captures the set up. Little black dress
> and knee high black boots, with her long blonde locks flowing; all
> pictured
> beside the children, yes, always the children. A more apt phrase would be:
> here comes Ann, hide the children.
> Coulter had stated that her "only regret with [Oklahoma City bomber]
> Timothy McVeigh is he did not go to the New York Times building." -
> NewsMax
> That the leading conservative ringmaster would promote terrorism on a free
> press institution, no matter how much she disagrees with their stance on
> issues, shows the desperation of conservatism and the plight of the
> Republican Party. There's nothing witty about it. Since Newt Gingrich's
> failed Contract on America, which was followed by his disgraced Speaker of
> the House era, conservatives have slowly and steadily been losing ground
> on
> credibility, policy and ethics. However, that hasn't stopped Chris
> Matthews
> and his friend Sean Hannity, both practicing Catholics, from offering post
> indictment interviews of Tom Delay, the champion of "forced abortions" in
> the Northern Marianas. But there's one person who hasn't suffered any real
> legal troubles, pocketbook blues or consequences for her vituperativeness.
> Her name is Ann Coulter.
>
> "High Crimes and Misdemeanors" was published in 1999 and became a New York
> Times bestseller. The vast right-wing conspiracy, helped along by Regnery
> Publishing, had been launched anew. The goal: make the first two-term
> Democratic president since F.D.R. a pariah, while condemning all things
> progressive to the trash heap. Rush Limbaugh hailed Coulter, as did
> others.
> But her first of five books was nothing compared to what came afterwards.
> She did not come out of the gate with such ruthless aplomb. As published
> at the height of the Clinton-Lewinsky scandal in 1998, "High Crimes and
> Misdemeanors" reflected her background as a lawyer and was fairly
> scholarly,
> considering what came after it. But once her lethally blond franchise
> became
> part of public consciousness, or at least the lower stem of it that feeds
> off cable talk, she quickly learned that hyperbole is best sold by the
> ton.
>
> Deadly Intent: Ann Coulter, Word Warrior
> David Carr calls Coulter's particular gift "weaponizing words." Washington
> Monthly chronicled Ann's early beginnings.
> We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to
> Christianity. We weren't punctilious about locating and punishing only
> Hitler and his top officers. We carpet-bombed German cities; we killed
> civilians. That's war. And this is war. - Ann Coulter, September 13, 2001
> President Bush's crusade campaign had a partner.
>
> And who can forget Coulter's claim that Katie Couric was "the affable Eva
> Braun of morning TV."
>
> Ms. Coulter rides it all the way to the bank.
>
> Here's a chronicle of some of her greatest quote hits.
> To a disabled Vietnam vet: "People like you caused us to lose that
> war."---MSNBC
>
> "We're now at the point that it's beyond whether or not this guy is a
> horny hick. I really think it's a question of his mental stability. He
> really could be a lunatic. I think it is a rational question for Americans
> to ask whether their president is insane."---Equal Time
>
> "I have to say I'm all for public flogging. One type of criminal that a
> public humiliation might work particularly well with are the juvenile
> delinquents, a lot of whom consider it a badge of honor to be sent to
> juvenile detention. And it might not be such a cool thing in the 'hood to
> be
> flogged publicly."---MSNBC 3/22/97
>
> "I think we had enough laws about the turn-of-the-century. We don't need
> any more." Asked how far back would she go to repeal laws, she replied,
> "Well, before the New Deal...[The Emancipation Proclamation] would be a
> good
> start."---Politically Incorrect 5/7/97
>
> "Anorexics never have boyfriends. ... That's one way to know you don't
> have anorexia, if you have a boyfriend."---Politically Incorrect 7/21/97
>
> "If they have the one innocent person who has ever to be put to death
> this
> century out of over 7,000, you probably will get a good movie deal out of
> it."---MSNBC 7/27/97
>
> "If those kids had been carrying guns they would have gunned down this
> one
> [child] gunman. ... Don't pray. Learn to use guns."---Politically
> Incorrect,
> 12/18/97
>
> "It's enough [to be impeached] for the president to be a pervert."---The
> Case Against Bill Clinton
>
> "If you don't hate Clinton and the people who labored to keep him in
> office, you don't love your country."---George, 7/99
>
> "I think there should be a literacy test and a poll tax for people to
> vote."---Hannity & Colmes, 8/17/99
>
> The "backbone of the Democratic Party" is a "typical fat, implacable
> welfare recipient"---syndicated column 10/29/99
>
> "The swing voters---I like to refer to them as the idiot voters because
> they don't have set philosophical principles. You're either a liberal or
> you're a conservative if you have an IQ above a toaster. "---Beyond the
> News, Fox News Channel, 6/4/00
>
> "Let's say I go out every night, I meet a guy and have sex with him. Good
> for me. I'm not married."---Rivera Live 6/7/00
>
> "The thing I like about Bush is I think he hates liberals."---Washington
> Post 8/1/00
>
> "I think [women] should be armed but should not [be allowed to]
> vote."---Politically Incorrect, 2/26/01
>
> "God gave us the earth. We have dominion over the plants, the animals,
> the
> trees. God said, 'Earth is yours. Take it. Rape it. It's
> yours.'"---Hannity
> & Colmes, 6/20/01
> After High Crimes came her string of New York Times bestsellers: Treason,
> Slander, How to Talk to a Liberal (if you must), Godless: The Church of
> Liberalism. Every single book was a money maker, with Ann's special talent
> for weaponizing words getting more and more violent as she published.
> When she was pushing "Treason: Liberal Treachery From the Cold War to the
> War on Terrorism," (almost 400,000 in sales), it was all about the
> misunderstood genius and patriotism of Senator Joseph R. McCarthy. In "How
> to Talk to a Liberal (If You Must)", she let readers in on the playbook:
> "You must outrage the enemy. If you don't leave liberals in a sputtering
> impotent rage, you're not doing it right." And her sales of 301,000 for
> what
> was basically a collection of columns seem to indicate that she has
> mastered
> the form.
>
> "Godless," which is already doing gangbuster business according to the
> folks at Barnes & Noble, suggests that liberalism "is the doctrine that
> prompts otherwise seemingly sane people to propose teaching children how
> to
> masturbate, allowing gays to marry, releasing murderers from prison, and
> teaching children that they share a common ancestor with the earthworm."
>
> Deadly Intent: Ann Coulter, Word Warrior
> What Coulter does is serve up red meat for the media. BradBlog chronicles
> Coulter regularly. Max Blumenthal reported that the church Ann claims
> doesn't know her. Corporate media could care less about the inconvenient
> facts. Bring us Coulter's cash.
>
> Why is she successful? Because she reduces liberals and most progressives
> to
> silence, then takes the floor for her own and the fans that flock to her.
> Few on our side like to go toe to toe rhetorically with the likes of
> someone
> who spews this type of venom. One clue as to what she's really doing came
> when she suggested putting "rat poisoning in Justice Stevens' creme
> brulee,"
> which was followed by her contention it was all a joke. Ah, yes, Ann is so
> witty. One wonders what would be said of a liberal spewing such hate. We
> all
> know the answer.
>
> What is also ignored in all the laughing is that Ann Coulter is the
> Republican Party. The Grand Old Party of the Past will do anything to get
> the job done, kill off their critics or candidates they don't like, as
> well
> as silence their enemies. Their tactics inspired The Patriot Project.
> Today's GOP is Nixon's enemies list on steroids.
> "These broads are millionaires, lionized on TV and in articles about
> them,
> reveling in their status as celebrities and stalked by grief-arazzis. I've
> never seen people enjoying their husbands' deaths so much." - Ann Coulter
> Through the weaponized "grief-arazzis," in Godless, you can hear the
> ratatattat of Coulter's rhetorical gun.
>
> The New York Times article calls Coulter one of the "leading political
> writers of our time." On the web and right-wing radio, her fans adore her.
>
> But her comments about the 9/11 widows sparked some serious push back.
> Keith
> Olbermann called her "shameless." Two years after USA Today dropped her,
> newspapers began dropping her, too.
> "Liberals have never liked her, and we've always gotten complaints [from
> them]. But the complaints that mattered the most were from the
> conservative
> readers," who felt that their views were being misrepresented. Cedar
> Rapids
> Newspaper Drops Ann Coulter's Column
> The Shreveport (La.) Times is letting their readers decide. Stay tuned.
>
> But Ann needn't worry, because she'll always have Human Events, who lists
> Coulter as their "legal affairs correspondent". In one of her latest
> columns for Human Events, Ann goes after John Kerry yet again.
> Unfortunately, she quotes the Detroit News, who truncated Kerry's quote,
> then refused to clarify their reporting, even after I had contacted the
> reporter who admitted there were errors in her piece. So much for trusting
> the hometown newspaper.
>
> Hugh Hewitt's new Townhall will also stand by Ann.
>
> However, the Augusta Chronicle just dropped her, but there's a rub. She
> was
> replaced with Michelle Malkin, the woman who thinks internment camps are a
> good idea. A woman who posted the personal information of three Santa Cruz
> students on her blog; put New York Times employees at risk; then was
> hoisted
> on her own pitard for yet another conservative anti-troop campaign that
> went
> flat, because I actually witnessed what she was floating. But at least Ms.
> Malkin never called the 9/11 widows "grief-arazzis."
>
> The 9/11 widows Coulter defamed, Kristen Breitweiser, Patty Casazza,
> Monica
> Gabrielle, Mindy Kleinberg and Lorie Van Auken, responded with feeling and
> class, something Coulter can never claim.
> We did not choose to become widowed on September 11, 2001. The attack,
> which tore our families apart and destroyed our former lives, caused us to
> ask some serious questions regarding the systems that our country has in
> place to protect its citizens. Through our constant research, we came to
> learn how the protocols were supposed to have worked. Thus, we asked for
> an
> independent commission to investigate the loopholes which obviously
> existed
> and allowed us to be so utterly vulnerable to terrorists. Our only
> motivation ever was to make our Nation safer. Could we learn from this
> tragedy so that it would not be repeated?
>
> We are forced to respond to Ms. Coulter's accusations to set the record
> straight because we have been slandered.
>
> Contrary to Ms. Coulter's statements, there was no joy in watching men
> that we loved burn alive. There was no happiness in telling our children
> that their fathers were never coming home again. We adored these men and
> miss them every day.
>
> It is in their honor and memory, that we will once again refocus the
> Nation's attention to the real issues at hand: our lack of security,
> leadership and progress in the five years since 9/11.
>
> We are continuously reminded that we are still a nation at risk.
> Therefore, the following is a partial list of areas still desperately in
> need of attention and public outcry. We should continuously be holding the
> feet of our elected officials to the fire to fix these shortcomings.
>
> Response of September 11th Advocates to "Godless"
> Recently, Tim Grieve of Salon.com reported that Yes! Weekly, a Greensboro,
> N.C. paper, has also "decided to dump Ann."
>
> Four newspapers does not make a tipping point, especially when you've got
> Sean Hannity propping up (or is that pimping?) your views and books to his
> millions of listeners; even making her a lead attraction at his "Freedom
> Concert," which actually is for a very good cause, even if Sean doesn't
> actually promote freedom. That said, I've had to edit this post several
> times before it went up because newspapers keep dropping Coulter's column.
>
> Then recently, when Coulter was charged with plagiarism, it was
> interesting
> that the proof was greeted with a collective yawn; but that changed, then
> the proof mounted, or did it?
>
> Crown Publishing denied it all, with Ann running from the cameras for the
> first time in her well publicized career.
>
> Coulter's latest book Godless brings new questions.
>
> Via "The Horse's Mouth," this headline says it all: Ann Coulter has us
> right
> where she wants us -- talking about Ann, by Craig Durrett.
>
> But the Coulter plagiarism charges keep coming and supposedly stretch back
> five years. TPM Muckraker's Justin Rood went to town on Coulter's alleged
> crimes: Coulter a Cribber? Company: No. Expert: Yuh-huh.; Coulter
> Syndicator
> Responds, with more here; but it's Rood's full list that's an eye popper.
> Behold the list, indeed, with more here and here. However, even TPM
> Muckraker boss, Josh Marshall, finds some of the claims "strained," much
> to
> liberal disappointment. I link, you decide.
>
> But drat! How can we get the conservative diva? Who can take her on?
>
> Matt Lauer failed miserably. He wasn't willing to get down in it with her.
> The important question to ask is why major networks continue to offer Ann
> a
> platform, while ignoring progressive women? Why is conservative hate
> speech
> such a draw?
>
> Norah O'Donnell, sitting in for Chris Matthews on "Hardball," blessed the
> conservative diva with an interview that was straight from Queen for a
> Day,
> something you'd expect from Fox News. The right-wing loved it. Now name
> one
> liberal or progressive diva who would get this kind of treatment anywhere.
> Time's up. She doesn't exist. But whose fault is that?
>
> Then there was Donny Deutch's rambunctious rumble with the conservative
> headliner, which was downright dirty. It was also the antidote for anyone
> sick of the milktoast media crowd.
>
> But the bottom line for Ann is that she brings viewers to the screen, fans
> to events, political train wreck watchers to the cash register.
>
> She brings book buyers to bookstores; people who read and pay.
>
> Dollars adding up on the bottom line, time after time after time, as Ann
> accumulates more and more clout. She's a one woman GOTV machine.
>
> And in the conservative blogosphere, she is a star. From Newsbusters:
> "allanf" says: Truly a case of beauty vs. brains. Let's call this one
> "the
> parrot and the Lady".
>
> American Infidel: "I wonder if Lauer is still crawled up in the fetal
> position after the a** whoopin he just got from Ann? We've finally given
> liberals a war against fundamentalism, and they don't want to fight it.
> They
> would, except it would put them on the same side as the United States. -
> Ann
> Coulter
>
> Sam: I love Ann Coulter. A little brash at times but always witty and
> thought provoking.
>
> Chris Norman: Why, oh, why, can't all conservatives handle interviews
> with
> the MSM along the lines of Ms. Coulter? Why do they always seem to fall
> into
> the liberal reporters' traps, let them frame the issue, and go on the
> defensive? Perhaps all conservative/Republican politicians should be
> forced
> to go to a media boot camp run by Ms. Coulter.
>
> Truth Missile: when Conservatives tell the truth the MSM (including
> Google) cries "hate-speech!", when Liberals tell the truth... I mean if
> they
> ever told the truth... well, if and when a Liberal ever tells the truth
> we'll figure out what the MSM lapdogs call it.
> Outside the Beltway had a cascade of complimentary Coulter commenters.
> Here
> are just three:
> Patrick: I have a strong affection for Ms. Coulter, probably because she
> is a lot like myself. She speaks her mind and really doesn't care who gets
> trampled in the process. I admire her for being able to do so with more
> wit
> and sophistication than myself. And she is a smoker from what I hear. My
> kind of woman!
>
> Tri: I'm a conservative and I'm not against Ms. Coulter's interview like
> many suggest we conservatives are. She hit the nail on the head. The left
> use these women as a mouthpiece because they think anyone that disagrees
> with them will look insensitive. To hell with their arguments.
>
> Zelsdorf: The libs like to talk about speaking truth to power. That is
> what Ann does. The power of the media. To match wits with Ann, they need
> something of a larger caliber than Matt Lauer. James I am beggining to
> think
> you an apologist for the left. Why is that? There is nothing but truth in
> what she said about those particular 9/11 wives. Why is calling the
> President a liar acceptable speech, but telling the truth about those who
> oppose him is not.
> This particular conservative post speaks for itself. So I'll gladly throw
> a
> toss to one of the few conservatives who actually called Ann out.
>
> While the cash register just keeps on ringing.
>
> Ann Coulter attracts conservatives like flies, if you'll forgive the
> analogy, and makes her patrons, corporate media sycophants and wingnut
> radio
> hosts happy. It's the most beautiful big money smear machine in operation
> today.
>
> However, contrary to what The New Republic prints, Coulter does not make
> liberals cringe because of her truth telling, because it's not in
> evidence,
> as I've shown above. Some liberals want to ignore her; say she doesn't
> matter. It's a mistake. But until our side learns to fight as dirty as Ann
> Coulter conservatives, we'll keep seeing W.'s diva on our screens, at the
> book stores and on the lecture circuit, firing up young conservatives and
> the Republican faithful. I just wish the likes of The New Republic
> wouldn't
> parrot her propaganda.
>
> But what's going to happen now that some newspapers are pitching Ann
> Coulter
> to the curb? Michelle Malkin will make more money. Maybe Laura Ingraham
> will
> finally get her shot. She's started substituting for Bill O'Reilly so can
> Ingraham mania be far behind?
>
> It begs the question: why don't Democratic divas get this kind of
> coverage?
> It would be nice to share in the wealth, not to mention the attention. We
> can weaponize words just as well as Ann, but make more sense doing it,
> which
> may be the problem. As for radio, we've got Randi Rhodes but few others.
> That's why I've taken things into my own hands, doing talk radio from my
> blog every day. Beat 'em in your own way, I say.
>
> But let's face it, we're just not the train wreck the conservative divas
> deliver every day. That could change, or maybe it's just not our style; or
> maybe it's time we adapt.
>
> Catfight anyone? Or would you prefer mud wrestling? Film at eleven, baby.
> Because remember, it's about entertainment.
>
> Sponsors, start your engines.
>
> Taylor Marsh
>
> Source: Yahoo
> http://news.yahoo.com/s/huffpost/20060816/cm_huffpost/027397
>
>
>
>
> --
> NOTICE: This post contains copyrighted material the use of which has not
> always been authorized by the copyright owner. I am making such material
> available to advance understanding of
> political, human rights, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues.
> I
> believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of such copyrighted material as
> provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright
> Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107
>
> "A little patience and we shall see the reign of witches pass over, their
> spells dissolve, and the people recovering their true sight, restore their
> government to its true principles. It is true that in the meantime we are
> suffering deeply in spirit,
> and incurring the horrors of a war and long oppressions of enormous public
> debt. But if the game runs sometimes against us at home we must have
> patience till luck turns, and then we shall have an opportunity of winning
> back the principles we have lost, for this is a game where principles are
> at
> stake."
> -Thomas Jefferson
>
>
>