Ann Coulter, as nutty as ever
Tim Rutten
Regarding Media
LA Times
PORNOGRAPHY is difficult to define, wrote Justice Potter Stewart, "but I know it when I see it."
That famously commonsensical line would seem to obviate the need for any deeper analysis of the egregious Ann Coulter. Like most pornographers, however, she is resourceful in the service of her own economic and other interests. That makes it hard to do what most sensible people do when confronted with obscenity, which is look away.
At the moment, Coulter is out pimping her latest book and, this week, she was definitely in your face.
Her biggest attention-getting moment came on — of all places — the "Today" show. This is hardly a confrontational forum. In fact, it's probably fair to say that to provoke harsh words on NBC's morning program, you've got to have the sort of personality that would start a food fight at a Mennonite church supper. Still, Coulter managed to prod even the preternaturally sunny Matt Lauer to something like outrage in this exchange over a section of the book concerning the widows of men killed in the World Trade Center atrocity:
Lauer: Do you believe everything in the book or do you put some things in there just to cater to your base?
Coulter: No, of course I believe everything.
Lauer: On the 9/11 widows, and in particular a group that had been critical of the administration [you write]: "These self-obsessed women seem genuinely unaware that 9/11 was an attack on our nation and acted like the terrorist attack only happened to them. They believe the entire country was required to marinate in their exquisite personal agony. Apparently, denouncing Bush was part of the closure process." And this part is the part I really need to talk to you about: "These broads are millionaires, lionized on TV and in articles about them, reveling in their status as celebrities and stalked by grief-arazzis. I have never seen people enjoying their husband's death so much." Because they dare to speak out?
Coulter: To speak out using the fact they are widows. This is the left's doctrine of infallibility. If they have a point to make about the 9/11 commission, about how to fight the war on terrorism, how about sending in somebody we are allowed to respond to. No. No. No. We have to respond to someone who had a family member die. Because then if we respond, oh, you are questioning their authenticity ….
Lauer: So if you lose a husband, you no longer have the right to have a political point of view?
(The rest is here.)
Regarding Media
LA Times
PORNOGRAPHY is difficult to define, wrote Justice Potter Stewart, "but I know it when I see it."
That famously commonsensical line would seem to obviate the need for any deeper analysis of the egregious Ann Coulter. Like most pornographers, however, she is resourceful in the service of her own economic and other interests. That makes it hard to do what most sensible people do when confronted with obscenity, which is look away.
At the moment, Coulter is out pimping her latest book and, this week, she was definitely in your face.
Her biggest attention-getting moment came on — of all places — the "Today" show. This is hardly a confrontational forum. In fact, it's probably fair to say that to provoke harsh words on NBC's morning program, you've got to have the sort of personality that would start a food fight at a Mennonite church supper. Still, Coulter managed to prod even the preternaturally sunny Matt Lauer to something like outrage in this exchange over a section of the book concerning the widows of men killed in the World Trade Center atrocity:
Lauer: Do you believe everything in the book or do you put some things in there just to cater to your base?
Coulter: No, of course I believe everything.
Lauer: On the 9/11 widows, and in particular a group that had been critical of the administration [you write]: "These self-obsessed women seem genuinely unaware that 9/11 was an attack on our nation and acted like the terrorist attack only happened to them. They believe the entire country was required to marinate in their exquisite personal agony. Apparently, denouncing Bush was part of the closure process." And this part is the part I really need to talk to you about: "These broads are millionaires, lionized on TV and in articles about them, reveling in their status as celebrities and stalked by grief-arazzis. I have never seen people enjoying their husband's death so much." Because they dare to speak out?
Coulter: To speak out using the fact they are widows. This is the left's doctrine of infallibility. If they have a point to make about the 9/11 commission, about how to fight the war on terrorism, how about sending in somebody we are allowed to respond to. No. No. No. We have to respond to someone who had a family member die. Because then if we respond, oh, you are questioning their authenticity ….
Lauer: So if you lose a husband, you no longer have the right to have a political point of view?
(The rest is here.)
Powered by Blogger
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home