« Match.com crusades against ‘bachelorism’ | Main | Genetic mutation: the pros and cons »
With Ann Coulter, how far is ‘too far’?
—Posted by Catharine P. Taylor |
|
June 15, 2006 | Permalink |
Comments
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
coulter shreds people's reputations to sell books--she's just another pathetic product of a land where being famous and making money come before just about anything else
Posted by: mingthemerciless | Jun 15, 2006 10:57:52 AM
So, is the rant here about her marketing? Is it her political leaning? Is it about her in general?
I'm trying to figure out what the relevance to advertising here is, other than what levels a person(enterprise) will go to in order to secure a market point. But this post sounds more like a personal irritation than a relevant post on the advertising market.
Posted by: Jay Jones | Jun 15, 2006 10:58:15 AM
Is it just a good excuse to throw an awesome yearbook photo onto the Web? Expects to see it on Gawker in 5...4...3...
Posted by: CorruptedJournalist | Jun 15, 2006 11:15:23 AM
dear clowns, "personal irritation" and "marketing" often go hand in hand, hence the reason for many blogs in the first place. don't ad people know that they work in most annoying profession ever created? it's more intrusive and destructive than the news media because it has even corrupted that. slime. pure slime.
Posted by: repent ye ad fools | Jun 15, 2006 11:20:50 AM
if she were in a car accident i would cry for the car
Posted by: | Jun 15, 2006 11:26:59 AM
Behold the unpredictable Internet...
http://www.gawker.com/news/ann-coulter/classmate-provides-evidence-that-ann-coulter-was-once-foodconsuming-organism-180993.php
Posted by: CorruptedJournalist | Jun 15, 2006 11:34:49 AM
While Coulter's comments about the widows were crass and insulting, she does make a very good point -- which could have been made with much greater class and maturity. Specifically, the Democrats have gotten into the happen of adopting as informal spokespersons people who, for an assortment of reasons unrelated to the strength or weakness of their opinions, are difficult to attack. Just look at what they did with Cindy Sheehan, nudging her (granted, she didn't need much nudging) into speaking out on a variety of issue ranging from Iraq to Katrina to the fact that "the Jews" control American foreign policy. And whenever someone critiqued her often looney views, the pre-programmed response was, "How dare you?! Her son died in the war!" I'm not sure Coulter's vitriole, however, will get us any closer to solving that particular brand of dirty politics.
Posted by: David | Jun 15, 2006 11:50:20 AM
So what it's on gawker? Ann Coulter is a venemous creature. If the worst thing that happens to her today is a picture from her high school yearbook gets posted on the internet, she's getting off light. Ann Coulter is Rush Limbaugh with a vagina, and that's nothing to be proud. She says the most inflammatory things possible, and for what? Does that somehow prove you have moral superiority? No! She's just your typical Republican, who believes that having the last word, or the loudest, translates into winning an argument. If I saw her out in public, I'd love to give her a good old pimp slap across the face, only I know she'd enjoy it too much. Ann Coulter is a social retard whose parents failed at life.
Posted by: Gawker Lover | Jun 15, 2006 11:54:04 AM
The problem with Ann Coulter's logic is that it is cyclical. She only proves her points with previous points. She never ever poses any actual proof to her arguments.
Secondly, this whole thing that liberals/democrats place injured/emotionally distressed spokespeople into the public forum so that they are unimpeachable is ridiculous. The Republican NEVER do that (sarcasm emphasized). Need I remind anyone of swiftboating? And, the Republicans also pushed any survivor/family member that they could in order to strum some heart strings.
Bottom line, she is obnoxious for obnoxious sake. She knows her points are weak and hypocritical, but she is aware that if you say it in an outrageous manner, you end up on the top of the best-seller list of the NY Times.
Posted by: What | Jun 15, 2006 12:10:47 PM
I understand that her parents are quite proud of Ann. They don't tell anyone that she's their daughter, but they're quite proud.
Posted by: Darrin | Jun 15, 2006 12:13:24 PM
Hey, I think I remember her from a high school gong show in a routine set to the tune of "The Things We Do for Love."
They didn't win.
Posted by: Randy Ram | Jun 15, 2006 12:24:19 PM
She's horrible...but it's good of you to post that I need not be afraid of running into a New Canaanite, lest they spew the garbage she does.
Posted by: RD | Jun 15, 2006 1:08:33 PM
Republicans were just as bad, saying "We have troops in the war, sacrificing their lives for freedom. How dare you not support them?"
Or did you forget about that?
Posted by: Also | Jun 15, 2006 1:10:00 PM
Actually, politicians are all venom. I don't trust a single one.
Each side has there radicals from Ann Coulter to Michael Moore.
Point is - i am sick of hearing how bad each side is - they clearly both use the same tactics to smear and blame.
No wonder this country is so fucked up. There is no unity at all
Posted by: Nut | Jun 15, 2006 1:30:10 PM
Not one person commenting here has read the book. Including myself.
I love Ann Coulter. I think she's witty, acerbic, and she has valid points. Does she hurt feelings? Not really.
If you can't respect someone that told the Sitting Senator of New York and Democratic Presidential Hopeful to sit down and shut up, you don't deserve to listen to Ann's arguments.
And no one's heard from the Senator since then. Don't you remember? The Senator was backing the Jersey Girls validity... until her own credibility/validity was called into question. And she realized that... ooops, this girl's got balls. Big Balls. She fights back. And Hillary slunk away to go talk out of both sides of her mouth to a bunch of drooling retards.
I loved it.
Posted by: justthefacts | Jun 15, 2006 1:44:21 PM
Actually, all of you who insist she made a "good point" are way off base and so was she. She has disproven her own theory. Not only can you challenge the 911 widows but you can insult them beyond belief in this society and get rich from it! Guess she was wrong eh?
Coulter claim these women made money off their husband horrific deaths which she sees a wrong. Well, if she's making HUGE amounts of money of thier backs as well doesn't that make her the biggest bottom feeder of them all?
Also, she says "they made their million now they need to shut-up". Ok fine so when is it her turn?
Thank God shes getting to old too breed! Well, acutally looks like no one has been strong enough in the gutt to take on that chore anyways!
Posted by: Johnathan | Jun 15, 2006 1:45:36 PM
I think the past tesne of 'slink' is 'slinked'...
Posted by: justthefacts2 | Jun 15, 2006 1:51:27 PM
i love ann coulter? whether you agree with her or not, she's not exactly lovable. and her popularity is based soley on two things: her very carefully orchestrated sensational comments and her looks--there are few leggy, blonde politcal pundits around. dig deep and she's really not that bright, in fact when she's cornered by someone smarter she just amps up her volume and gets quite shrill. And if you ever see her in person, which I did last month at an la hotel, you will see a classic wasp ice queen. rail thin (eating disorder perhaps?) and not very attractive at all.
Posted by: mingthemerciless | Jun 15, 2006 2:08:35 PM
Is there a person alive that made more cash or fame from the 911 tragedy than the old Bush/Cheney team?
Please! Those two conjur it up like a bunny from a magicians hat.
If they were real men they would stand up for these women who are being attacked for no reason and that Anthrax Coulter doesn't speak for them.
If not for these women the 911 commission would have never come to be.
These women were no different than the women who stood up (and rightfully so) for tougher drunk driving laws. Remember MADD?
In my opinion people who face such terrible pain and loss who turn it around to the good are special beyond words.
Uplifting print Coulter, from the church of conservatism, "SOULESS". God must be so proud of you you darling little spreader of Heavenly Light!
Posted by: Misty | Jun 15, 2006 2:11:21 PM
Side comment to "justthefacts":
Sit down and shut up.
And if you can't respect that, you don't deserve to listen to this argument.
Posted by: Connecticut Republican | Jun 15, 2006 2:14:44 PM
Her point is that they are PROMOTING an AGENDA because of their victimhood. And this agenda can't be attacked because they're victims.
She has attacked the agenda, yes, but she and three others are the only one's with balls enough/no political repercussions to do it.
That's her problem with the Left's demogoguery of victims. They use them to promote their agenda. POLITICIANS can't attack their agendas because it looks like a personal attack on a victim, and the press eats it up.
That's her problem. You retard. Her problem isn't with CITIZENS attacking these people, it's politicians being able to.
Posted by: 2Johnathon | Jun 15, 2006 2:14:51 PM
yes.
love her.
she's bright and she's got backbone, passion, and she's a fighter.
i'm not talking about her looks. i don't find her unattractive, but her personality/integrity/character are what keep me looking.
you can attack her all day long. she won't back down, and she shouldn't.
she's RIGHT.
Posted by: REmingthemerciless | Jun 15, 2006 2:19:22 PM
Yes, Extreme right.
Posted by: Blue Wave Rules! | Jun 15, 2006 2:25:31 PM
She attacked the agenda?
Is the agenda a "harpie?"
Were the husbands who died in 9/11 planning to divorce the agenda?
Honey, she attacked people. And she did it to further her own non-mainstream agenda.
Posted by: Pop Staples | Jun 15, 2006 2:28:59 PM
Of course none of us read her books! Why on earth would I shell out $19.95 (or whatever her book costs) to read her drivel when the whole reason behind her ludicrous persona is to do just that -- seperate me from my $19.95? No, I won't be reading Ann Coulter's books anytime soon. Ann Coulter will stay relegated to my 'entertainment' and will be relevant in so much as she appears on TV talk shows.
The funny thing about Ann Coulter is she seems to have started a trend: 'attractive' bitches with conservative rhetoric, i.e. Michelle Malkin and that other ho who thinks women shouldn't be allowed to vote and that their place is in the home (ironic much?). The funniest thing about it is how they defend privelleged white male view points, thinking that the more ruthlessly they act the more they can be 'one of the boys' when really their nothing more than their waitresses at a titty bar. It must suck to hate having a vagina that much. Luckily for Ann Coulter, she has man hands and a horse face. Without all that long blonde hair, she wouldn't be distinguishable as a woman.
You know, I can be a bitch, too. Maybe I should make a franchise out of it. Nahh, I would be able to stand myself if my tv personality was that much of a scathing cunt and I had to turn it on whenever I was out in public.
Posted by: Gawker Lover | Jun 15, 2006 2:29:23 PM
They should grind her ovaries into a fine powder for Rush Limbaugh to snort.
Posted by: tom lout | Jun 15, 2006 2:30:53 PM
the only way I would spend 20 bucks in relation to the steaming pile of genetic waste called Ann Coulter would be to watch her receive repeated blows to the side of the head with a baseball bat. she sucks. anyone that respects her sucks worse for being such an idiot
Posted by: | Jun 15, 2006 3:04:24 PM
Hey Coulter God called he wants his Crucifix back he says you're embarrassing him.
Posted by: Zeth | Jun 15, 2006 3:06:20 PM
She's a marketing machine. Pure and simple. Do you all really think she believes a fucking word of what she says?
She's that rare combination of savvy and conscious-free, and she's willing to do and say anything for a buck. The more people who hate her, the more money she makes.
As others have mentioned, it's not a formula confined to the right. Michael Moore being a prime example.
Posted by: Alex Cross | Jun 15, 2006 3:28:19 PM
How is this comment "They should grind her ovaries into a fine powder for Rush Limbaugh to snort, any different in tone than what most of you despise in Ann Coulter? Agreed, Ann Coulter's rhetoric can be caustic, however, when reading the vile responses to her *personally*, it exposes a disturbing predisposition to *attack,* instead of just to *disagree.* A woman shouldn't be threatened with rape, death, sterilization (as noted in the "grind her ovaries" comment above) because she happens to have a different OPINION than you do. (All of which she has reported have been directly suggested to her. Why the virulence? Jeez, it's not like she can make her opinions into LAW, she's just a WRITER!)
As far as her marketing goes, you have to give her this - she's turned controversy into an art form, and damn if it doesn't work for her. Word of mouth marketing is the best kind of marketing, and lookee here - we're all talking about her, and her book. And maybe, some of us with open minds, might actually choose to read it, instead of condemn it because that appears to be the trendy thing to do.
Posted by: what-happened-to-civil-discourse? | Jun 15, 2006 3:28:47 PM
"How is this comment 'They should grind her ovaries into a fine powder for Rush Limbaugh to snort' any different in tone than what most of you despise in Ann Coulter?"
^^^^That's funny. Whereas Ann Coulter says mean-spirited things, like, the "widows of 911" are enjoying their husbands' deaths. Besides, everyone knows crushed ovaries don't get you nearly as high as crushed baby fetuses.
Posted by: Gawker Lover | Jun 15, 2006 3:43:06 PM
Ann Coulter's book actually has a really brave section about the Health Care System. I wish people would talk about that at some point.
Posted by: Agent Provocateur | Jun 15, 2006 3:43:06 PM
ann coulter is no more than a circus sideshow. no one really takes her seriously. and most people know that she's pushing these buttons to sell her books. she's a flavor of the month--cherry conservative--and before too long will pass from the public's consciousness.
Posted by: mingthemerciless | Jun 15, 2006 3:45:27 PM
As another Connecticut showman, P.T. Barnum, would say, "This way to the egress."
Posted by: Sawdust is Not Nutmeg | Jun 15, 2006 3:50:12 PM
Ann Coulter says what a lot of people think and/or are afraid to say, i give her credit
Posted by: J | Jun 15, 2006 4:24:06 PM
BWP, baby.
Posted by: bwp | Jun 15, 2006 4:42:29 PM
J, don't be naive. She has all the depth of a radio talk show host. People like her all do the same thing--act unvcivilized and profit from it. Plenty of folks have said what others are afraid to say--jonathan swift, oscar wilde, philip roth--far more eleqountly and far more memorably than coulter.
Posted by: mingthemerciless | Jun 15, 2006 4:43:27 PM
won't somebody PLEASE think of the CHILDREN?
it is pretty amusing to see a republican of all people accusing democrats of using the dead to make appeals. every time i try to argue with a conservative about anything, from social security to iraq to gay marraige, the answer is always, "well i guess you've already forgotten the traumatic events of 9-11... terrorist."
Posted by: del ruby | Jun 15, 2006 4:55:57 PM
in the title of her book coulter calls her oppostion "godless". religion is the last taboo and even coulter won't go after it. most reilgion is utter bullshit--a bunch of fairy tales strung together to pacify the masses--similar to advertisng when you think about it. if coulter really wanted to shake things up she'd go right at america's obsession with church pews and bell towers.
Posted by: mingthemerciless | Jun 15, 2006 5:06:22 PM
I know a certain prominent attorney in Manhattan who would leave his wife and children for a night with Ann Coulter. For one long sweaty night with Ann at the Liberty down in the meatpacking district, he'd cheerfully sell his soul. Go figure.
Posted by: Dave | Jun 15, 2006 6:07:27 PM
A lawyer lacking in morals? Wow!
Posted by: yikes | Jun 15, 2006 6:48:08 PM
She exists a media entity purely for the sake of making the far right positions of the Republican Party seem more reasonable than they are. I don't think that she actually beleives 1/2 of what she says or writes. She plays wingnut so that the Bushies et al seem more "moderate." This makes her all the more dispicable.
Posted by: ludovico | Jun 15, 2006 8:12:01 PM
Yeah yeah, Ann is over the top, but Michael Moore and his types are speaking truth to power.
As far as this pertaining to advertising, her marketing is the writing itself. Even if she didn't do the typical book hawking in the various forms of media, her detractors would still be trotting out soundbites from her book.
And that's the point. She says the Left is more concerned about someone chopping down a tree than killing a baby. And that's true, but no one wants to hear it stated in such a fashion.
So everyone sidesteps her topics, and focus instead on her manner of communication. The Right raise their collective fist and say "Yeah!" while the Left frets about the language she uses, never daring to actually address the real subject.
Posted by: Ray | Jun 16, 2006 9:30:14 AM
Ray, I agree totally! There are issues of "tone" on both sides of the aisle. Frankly, I'd like to smack their collective heads together, say "Stop posturing, work together and go fix something!" Finger pointing, name-calling, and death threats are just barriers to solutions. (Jeez we have terrorists just over the Canadian border planning to decapitate their prime minister, isn't THAT more important to deal with than a writer who wants to sell books?)
Ultimately, being provocative is the goal of many writers and artists, to get their audience emotionally engaged in their work. In that alone, it appears that Ann Coulter has been very successful. Love her or hate her, it appears there is no other choice.
Posted by: what-happened-to-civil-discourse? | Jun 16, 2006 10:00:39 AM
The democrats have moore. The republicans have coulter. Both have big mouths, no class, and are not worth listening to.
Posted by: lisa | Jun 16, 2006 10:23:28 AM
Just going back to the top of this topic.
I'd guess that a majority of Republicans do NOT agree with Ms. Coulter. Part of it is her utter fringe extremism. Part of it is simpler... she's just not a nice person. And part of it is she's a woman, which even Reublican women tend to discount. As an entertainer, she's on the spectrum somewhere between Richard Lewis and Tony Danza.
Posted by: I Survived Perry's Nuthouse | Jun 16, 2006 11:49:44 AM
She was on Jay Leno the other night along with George Carlin who delivered a genius monologue and who had the good sense to stay out of a political debate when entertainment and provocation was the theme of the show. The studio audience must have been packed with New Caananites since they cheered her every syllable.
Jay was genial and the most pushy question was:
"Have you ever had sex with a Liberal?"
"No," was her one syllable answer although she admitted to having one liberal friend (probably Bill Maher I guessed) who vetted the book before publishing. If you want to run a book by someone who can spot offense, I guess Bill is the guy.
Re: offenses. I have come across three magazines that have re-printed the Danish cartoons that set off riots, murders, arson through the Middle East. Harper's, Intellectual Activist, Weekly Standard. Odd that that would be all, given the newsworthiness of the cartoons. But maybe I don't read enough magazines.
Posted by: Tom Messner | Jun 16, 2006 11:51:49 AM
vetted the book? has anyone noticed the absurd rise of the word vetted over the last two years or so? words like this seep into usage for a year or two and then disappear never to be heard from again. there's a good book that just came out called "death sentences" which speaks to the issue of businessspeak and its negative impact on our language. tom, you should have vetted that sentence before you posted it.
Posted by: mingthemerciless | Jun 16, 2006 12:01:03 PM
New Canaan is full of 9/11 widows and orphans. Ann Coulter is not popular here.
Posted by: New Canaan Family Guy | Jun 16, 2006 12:03:44 PM
Vetted is a useful word since it means to "subject to expert appraisal or correction." It is useful because in two syllables it does the work of a dozen or so. I would vet my sentences before I post them but this is a fucking blog and I haven't worked as a proofreader since 1968 when I did a freelance gig correcting grammar, punctuation, and spelling for Grumman aircraft's publications department. None of the planes I was working on crashed because of word usage.
But try to get the Carlin monologue, mingthemerciless. Its genius lies in satirizing not only businessspeak but allspeak. I got a copy from VMS today, that's the company that oddly enough advertises on this site.
Posted by: Tom Messner | Jun 16, 2006 1:05:43 PM
