August 01, 2004

Ann Coulter and USA Today

As you may or may not know, Ann Coulter had been hired by USA Today as a columnist to cover the Democratic Convention, but was quickly replaced by Jonah Goldberg. WorldNetDaily has the original column, and a quick read through it explains why she's no longer welcome on the pages of USA Today.

Here at the Spawn of Satan convention in Boston...My pretty-girl allies stick out like a sore thumb amongst the corn-fed, no make-up, natural fiber, no-bra needing, sandal-wearing, hirsute, somewhat fragrant hippie-chick pie wagons they call 'women' at the Democratic National Convention....The last former government official to slake his thirst so deeply with the Kool-Aid"

Etc.

I used to think Coulter was probably pretty good, but I hadn't read much of her material. One of my favorite teachers was a big fan, and Rush Limbaugh endorsed her, right? So she must be good. But after reading that column, I can say with the editors of USA Today, "Good riddance."

I've discovered a growing distaste for Rush Limbaugh too, although I once loved his show. I even got the "Rush 24/7" subscription to his website. But now... I think that discovering blogs has really changed how I look at political issues and debate. At one point Rush and Coulter appealed to me because I was more interested in the fight between Republicans and Democrats. Republicans = Good, Democrats = Evil. Now I've become much more focused on issues rather than on parties; I'm more open-minded. And the equations are different now: Democrats still = evil, but now Republicans = Evil too. (Walter Williams explains why. Short version: It's wrong to take other people's stuff.)

Limbaugh and Coulter also have a biting, insulting tone that more often than not becomes namecalling. While that can be a lot of fun, it's not going to change people's minds. That's is why my favorite talk show host is Hugh Hewitt. Obviously Hewitt prefers similar ground to Limbaugh and Coulter, but he's interested in debate and getting both sides of the issue, which is why he regularly has guests from both sides of the aisle. He's also a lot less arrogant than Limbaugh, which I appreciate.

I'm glad to hear that Jonah Goldberg is replacing Coulter in the USA Today. Reading his article from USA Today, it does call Kerry a flip-flopper--although much more colorfully--but that's definitely a reputation Kerry's earned. Calling someone a flip-flopper isn't an insult so much as an accusation of dishonestly changing positions to get votes. That's important, because that dishonesty affects his job performance as an elected leader. On the other hand, calling someone a Kool-aid drinking spawn of Satan has no merit in debate.

So, good riddance to Ann Coulter, the Right's Michael Moore, and may Jonah Goldberg do a better job than she did.

(Many of today's links were brought to you by Joe Gandelman at Dean's World.)

Clarification: My lone commenter has pointed out that my comparison of Coulter to Michael Moore is unfair, because Coulter doesn't lie every other time she speaks. And that's true. What I intended to say was that both Moore and Coulter are (or at least should be) embarrassments to their respective parties.

Posted by Blog Jones at August 1, 2004 12:23 AM | Category: Politics

Comments

I agree with you that Anne needs to tone her comments down a bit. (she has gotten a little more outspoken over the past couple of years. However to compare her to Michael Moore is a little extreme. At least her info is truthful unlike Moore's who makes his up. I try to read her column everyweek and I believe as the media becomes more liberal she tries to counter it with her biting wit. But once you get through the first paragraphs of insults there really is meat to her writing.

...Plus she is a supporter of BJU.

Posted by: Erica at August 1, 2004 11:30 PM

At first she always angers me, but she's so over the top, I have to believe she's truly disturbed.

Posted by: Bob at August 2, 2004 04:45 PM

I disagree - Coulter lies just as often as Michael Moore if not more. And she's got to be more hateful.

I used to listen to Rush, too (believe it or not!) waaay back when I was still a conservative. Now, I can't really stand listening to someone like him on either side of the political fence. Give me an articulate, well-read person from either side, thanks. Or better yet, someone who straddles both like Andrew Sullivan --and, boy, do folks on both sides hate him! Poor guy. (I really disagree with him on the war, but agree with him on gay rights.)

"And the equations are different now: Democrats still = evil, but now Republicans = Evil too."

LOL. To an extent I agree. On the other hand, there are really good people on both sides. Arguably many on both sides are motivated by the desire to do good--they just see it from different angles. My parents are fundamentalists and they think homosexuality's wrong, so they'd support the FMA - pure and simple. As a former fundamentalist, I don't believe homosexuality is wrong anymore. I can't find anything to support the idea any more, so I can't support the FMA because it seems wrong to me to discriminate against gays. (I know many now, and *none* of them live the lifestyle we were taught they did as fundamentalists - we're fed a lot of preposterous stereotypes about gays.) . . . So, we all want to do the right thing, but our beliefs prohibit us from doing certain things or encourage us to do certain things. Now, I think I'm right, but having been brought up fundamentalist, I understand my parent's point of view.

So while I emphatically disagree with th Republicans on many issues (I'm tempted to think of them as evil--and let's face it, there are nasty venal people in the world, but they're i both parties), I have to admit many of them are just trying to do good as they understand it. Same for the Dems. (People assume I'm a Democrat, but I really don't like any labels at all. I'm a registered independent.) Libs/conservatives. Cathlics/Protestants. Christian/Hindu. Etcetera.

Anyway, all that's a meandering way of saying, I agree with you, but there really are good folks on both sides. I tend to gravitate to people who are at least socially liberal and I can sympathize with fiscal conservatism. Nothing raises my ire more than social conservatism though, which I've instinctually come to think of as rooted in superstitious thinking. An attitude of mine which isn't always fair.

Anyway, I wish I'd run into someone as open to discussion as you when I attended BJU. Would've made my time there at lot less lonelier.

Cheers.

Posted by: Bob at August 2, 2004 10:21 PM

You know, the issues of difference between the "sides" are legitimate differences (unless they're put forward by a liberal). We forget, too, that sometimes honest people can have an honest difference of opinion (except liberals aren't honest).

Ok that was a joke... (you have to say that because people don't always recognize it anymore, sad to say).

But I have to agree with you on this one BJ - as much as it hurts to.

The hitmen of politics are boring. And being a Hitman For Jesus doesn't exactly seem to fit somehow...

Posted by: Boileryard Clarke at August 3, 2004 10:13 PM
Due to the proliferation of comment spam, I've had to close comments on this entry. Sorry. Spammers ruin it for everybody. If you really, really want to add a comment to this entry, email me.