Maybe she missed the headlines

June 16, 2006

About 10 days ago, [tag]Ann Coulter[/tag] generated national attention by lashing out at [tag]9/11[/tag] [tag]widows[/tag]. The ensuing controversy lasted about a week and, aside from some support from the sanity–impaired wing of the GOP, the political world had largely moved on.

So, naturally, [tag]Coulter[/tag] had to kick things back up again.

In an email interview with John Hawkins at the [tag]Right Wing News[/tag] web site, Coulter was asked, among other things, to offer short comments on several individuals. After harmlessly dismissing former Ambassador Joseph Wilson as the “World’s most intensely private exhibitionist,” she said of Rep. [tag]John Murtha[/tag], the hawkish ex-Marine and now antiwar congressman: “The reason soldiers invented [tag]’fragging[/tag].'”

Fragging, which became a well-known expression –and occurrence — during the Vietnam war, means soldiers attempting to kill their own officers for one reason or another.

This was so over the top that conservative Mike Krempasky at RedState.org posted, “I’ve said before that’s its kind of ironic that just about every phrase Stewie from Family Guy uses to describe Lois could easily be applied to Ann Coulter. Well – once again, Ann proves us right.” He went on to call her “fragging” remark absolutely “disgusting….there’s no excuse – NONE – for the allusion to soldiers who kill other soldiers. It’s despicable – and frankly, so is Coulter.”

Yes, Coulter seems to believe — and was willing to put in print — that Murtha should be shot killed. Given the timing, it’s my strong belief that Coulter missed the dimming limelight, so she intentionally came up with another comment she knew would disgust anyone with a shred of decency. And sure enough, Coulter created another round of headlines for herself.

It prompts an interesting question: is the political world, particularly the progressive community, just better off ignoring Coulter’s existence? Do we help generate attention for her, which is what she wants? It’s tempting, but my friend Peter Daou believes it would be a mistake.

He makes a good case, but I’m still torn on the subject.

As Yul Brynner (spelling) said in The Ten Commandments:

“Let him (Moses) rave on so that men may know him to be mad.”

  • Not to be nitpicky, but she didn’t suggest that he should be shot — she suggested that he blown up, simply because he disagrees with her.

    As far as what to do with her, I’m with mark on this one: let her keep spouting off so that the rest of the country can see just how amazingly hateful those on the right truly are.

  • I used to hate Coulter, but I realized that, not only was that what she wanted, but that I was wasting my emotional energy on her. I realized she was a just a sad, lonely spinster who wanted attention so badly she’d say anything to get it.

    Now I hear what she says, and I fear what it might incite in her ignorant fanbase, but I just sadly shake my head for her.

  • As much as I would like Ann Coulter to end up a bagger at Whole Foods in the Bay area I think in this case we have to address the insanity. She needs to become the Michael Moore of the right wing. I want her held up as the poster-child for extremism on the right.

  • Here’s a submission for Webster’s dictionary:

    coulter [‘kOl-t&r] — a vile, tasteless remark that undercut one’s credibility and point of view.

    Example of usage: She uttered a coulter that left the family speechless.

  • The more intense and unending her headline grabbing is, the more people will write their local papers asking that her “column” be removed because she is just hateful.

    I have to agree that the more she spouts her nonsense, as publicly as possible, the better it us for us.

  • This is not a question of right wing extremism. One can hold extreme positions and still be respectful of others’ views.

    Coulter is just a hatefilled, hateful shrew. Her comments must be condemed and all conservatives who won’t must be held up to ridicule.

  • is the political world, particularly the progressive community, just better off ignoring Coulter’s existence?

    hate to say it, but I don’t think it matters because the entertainment world will evidently always give her attention no matter how vile she is. We can ignore her, but Larry King will still book her, she’ll still appear on shows like Today and Tonight, and all the right wing cable crazies of course will continue to showcase her. Just because we ignore doesn’t mean that she’ll go away. If her lies go unanswered and get repeated enough sooner or later they will enter the mainstream.

  • I agree that sunshine is the best disinfectant for these clowns. But it gets to a point, with any particular person, that they have been so outrageously wrong and defamatory and noxious on so many occassions that any respectable medium, be it radio, print, television or other, should make the decision that they will not allow that person the dignity of their time and the valuable “real estate” their medium provides. And if they DO continue to provide a platform for such folks, then they must make darn well sure that their representative aggressively calls each and every one of them on their pschotic and hatefull babblings.

  • i basically agree with MNProgressive and bubba: we should make the issue not coulter herself but the willingness of the media to give her a platform, and we should be looking to tie the gop to her: “you sound just like an ann coulter republican.”

    personally, i think she’s probably got a cocaine problem….

  • Ms. Coulter is, in the grand scheme of things, a small fry. Heck, the Rude Pundit found all sorts of instances of plagiarism in her Godless book–she just recycled bits and pieces of right-wing memoranda, had the rubbish bound, and put a dust jacket on it. So her invective is, like her underwear, stale. She is a tool, and tools are far less interesting to me than those who wield them and how and why the tools get used as they do.

    More to the point is understanding and exposing the infrastructure that supports the shrieking harpies and how much direct control the GOP has over it and in what manner folks like her receive their reward. I’m more inclined to believe that Coulter gets her wealth not because the public values her ideas and are willing to pay her for them, but on the charity of GOP benefactors in the form of mass book-buyings, speaking fees, and in-kind benefits (e.g., trips). For all intents and purposes, this creates a conflict of interest that compromises her ability to be truthful. That is perhaps the best way to frame this–why is the news using bought-and-paid-for celebrity spokespeople as credible sources of opinion and analysis? Are we watching news or infomercials?

  • Coulter may sell books with her off-the-wall invective, BUT she doesn’t help the conservative cause.

    If you don’t agree just consider this. What if she were on our side? Would you want that embarassment supporting your positions? It would be like having Fred Phelps chime in that he agreed with you on something. You would know then and there that you must be wrong. And in any case, you wouldn’t want people to think that you were in any way associated with him.

    My advice: Let Coulter talk. Even encourage her to talk. Then publicize her comments.

  • re #13–In my head I get the picture, in Young Frankenstein, of Frau Bleucher, and every time her name is spoken the horses react negatively with painful whinneys.

  • “is the political world, particularly the progressive community, just better off ignoring Coulter’s existence?”

    Is there a “political world” left anymore? Isn’t it all just corporate TV and corporate entertainment and corporate bookselling? The only way to avoid Andrew Coulter and his pooped-your-pants “commentary” is to avoid TV as much as possible, and I already do that.

    Far from censoring Coulter, I’d offer him prime time at the next Democratic National Convention. Certainly more entertaining than speeches about “New Directions”.

  • I realized she was a just a sad, lonely spinster who wanted attention so badly she’d say anything to get it.

    100% agree.

    And to continue my echoing, bubba, MNProgressive, howard, et. al, are right on. Coulter is clearly hate filled, but the SCLM should be held accountable for disseminating her pathetic invective. Next thing we know, the SCLM will start inviting the disgusting Phelps clan to provide “insight” and “analysis”. Ugh.

  • Maybe it’s just my awareness of her, but I feel like she’s gone further off the deep end. Reminds me of Lee Atwater, Pappa Bush’s campaign manager, who was crazy partisan and then died of a brain tumor. Could it be that Coulter requires hospitalization?

    Here’s an interesting (though not relevant) quote from an excellent wikipedia entry on Atwater:

    Bob Herbert reported in the October 6, 2005 edition of the New York Times of a 1981 interview with Lee Atwater in which he explains the GOP’s Southern Strategy:

    You start out in 1954 by saying, “Nigger, nigger, nigger.” By 1968 you can’t say “nigger” – that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states’ rights and all that stuff. You’re getting so abstract now [that] you’re talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you’re talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites.
    And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I’m not saying that. But I’m saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other. You follow me – because obviously sitting around saying, “We want to cut this,” is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than “Nigger, nigger.” [2]

  • Edited from a post of my own:

    The real criticism goes to the producers and editors who showcase Coulter. They give her the platform, they are complicit in her hatred.

    Producers and editors know her shtick. She is not going to enlighten anyone, she is not going to change any minds, she is only there to provoke hatred, either hatred of her or hatred of whoever she is attacking. They put her on, they lower themselves to the level of carnivals and back alleys.

    They aren’t serving a news function by putting her on. They are cynically using a hate-monger for ratings and/or buzz. They have made that choice, and they need to recognize that they are forfeiting their credibility with that choice.

  • Well said, Lame Man. Controversy, whether real or created (or more accurately just the smell of controversy) is what most media is now after. The write-up regarding the award the AP gave to that reporter Solomon for his error filled HArry Reid “reporting” is just one blatant example.

  • Query: Would it be deemed “over the top” to donate funds to a collection to pay for the ‘fragging” of Ann Coulter? Or, maybe Cheney could just take her hunting. The media will not stop booking her; ultra-conservative organizations will not stop soliciting her participation. She overtly threatens the lives of Supreme Court Justices, Federal Judges, Senators, Representatives, and Ordinary Citizens. So tell me—why hasn’t she been “neutralized?”

  • Encourage her to speak, and hang her like an albatross around the neck of the republican party.

    In fact, I would take to calling her “Republican Spokesperson, Ann Coulter.”

    As in “Republican spokesperson Ann Coulter today denounced the 9-11 widows as shameless, publicity-seeking broads who revelled in their husband’s deaths.”

    and

    “Republican Spokesperson Ann Coulter said today that the practice of fragging was developed specifically for men like Congressman Jack Murtha, a retired marine officer who served in Korea and Vietnam. “

  • make that “Senior Republican Strategist Ann Coulter”. That way the RNC can’t formally deny that she is a spokesperson.

  • Ann Coulter loves, nay craves, attention even if it’s in the form of abuse – in fact the more abusive and vitriolic the remarks thrown at her, the better she feels. I don’t know, maybe her daddy didn’t buy her a pony or pay attention to her when she was a little kid, but she definitely feels neglected if someone isn’t saying something to or about to her.
    All the diatribe and screed she generates has only one purpose – to draw attention to herself. She wants people to know that she exists. She craves for you to tell her she’s a c*nt.

  • We need to concentrate on the important stuff. She’s no different from a troll. You don’t feed these people. She’s not winning the hearts and minds of people who might otherwise vote these radical right crazies out of office. It’s just wasted energy. We need to win, not waste time and resources expressing our outrage. Takes discipline, but it can be done. I simply don’t read or watch any of these hate mongers anymore.

    They don’t have any influence on the people who might be persuaded to dump Bush and the right wing nightmare that has overtaken our country, except, perhaps, to push them over to our side.

  • We need to get the Dems and MSM’s to use the appropriate label: Prominent Republican, Republican spokesperson, etc.

    It’s all in the packaging.

  • She wraps all her invective in the freedom of speech ammendment, but just because one can say whatever one wants, doesn’t mean one should.

    I really like #5…I’m going to start using it today!

  • She receives no space on my blog. I don’t watch anything she appears on. I don’t support her, or even recognize that her statements have validity in my very, real world. I’m for the “ignore” option.

  • I agree with MNProgressive. Coulter should become the Dem’s Willie Horton. The Republicans have had great success at painting all Democrats as far left stereotypes. Use Coulter to paint all Republicans as nazis. And nail them to her with the term “convulsatives.”

    • Comments are closed.