Inspired by this thread.
Why is Ann Coulter so daggum popular? Even some conservatives seem to think she’s nuts. The only things I can come up with are the outrageousness of her statements combined with the novelty of a pretty-faced pundit, but she’s not even all that good-looking. Anyone care to clue me in here?
I think Ann Coulter is great. She reïnforces to me that I’m on the right side of American political discourse: the non-crackpot side. She’s a poison pill to the American right wing, and I say may they have many more. Granted, I resent people who insist that I’m a terrorist, and she does insist as much about me. I remember September 11 pretty clearly, having evacuated a building not far from the World Trade Center, wondering if another plane was coming for ours. I remember wondering if the five people I knew who worked in the Trade Center were okay, and I remember thinking for a while that one of them was lost. Yes, thank you, Ann Coulter, for calling me a terrorist, a bad American, just because I question what our esteemed president is doing.
For the record: I’m also a little swarthy.
Anyone who listens to Coulter can’t possibly take politics seriously. As to her appeal to anyone, peasea: I honestly have no idea.
Good media marketing, I guess. Geraldo Rivera, who’s fading now, managed to be very marketable for a quarter of a century although the only people I’ve ever met who didn’t regard him as a buffoon were the ones who hated him.
Ann Coulter is proof positive that rabies isn’t necessarily fatal.
*line stolen from a poster who's name I cannot recall*Anne Coulter is good looking. She’s smart as hell. She’s an exceedingly careful researcher, and documenter. She’s provocative. She’s a very entertaining read.
I’ve read and enjoyed several of her books. I think they are good and useful and should be read by people regardless of their affiliation.
All that’s really needed is a disclaimer on the front cover warning us that she’s profoundly insane.
Once you understand that fact, you can get a lot out of her.
(upon preview, perhaps it might be rabies)
In all seriousness, I think it’s a crying shame that she is what she is. She has a lot to offer, and I think that ultimately her attitudes contaminate a lot of her value.
OTOH, she may be doing it on purpose (in fact sometimes I’m sure she is,) which I guess would make her a true genius.
So, she’s either a true genius, or rabidly insane. I can’t decide.
There’s nothing genius about acting nuts and shocking just to get people to notice you, especially if you’re already pretty darn smart to begin with. In fact, that’s kind of stupid and self-hating, in a way.
dan:
Yeah, but I wonder if what she wrotes doesn’tserve two purposes. She does point out some stupid stuff, and some hypocrisies of the liberal left.
On the other hand she makes conservatives like myself uncomfortable with the black and white way a lot of people in our party see things. the one point perspective.
In reality, she serves the middle. I just wonder if it’s deliberate (and I knda think it is)
I think this one’s a good example of what I mean:
Is it true that she’s Peggy Noonan’s evil “Mini-Me?”
Another pit thread about Ann Coulter? Let the ranting, wise-cracks and venomous hatred begin!
Say what you like about her, but the way I see it, part of the reason for her popularity is her unique approach:[ol]
[li]Controversial Demeanor: She speaks her mind and has a very in-your-face, politically incorrect style. I think I remember someone referring to her as the Gore Vidal of the right wing. Her frank and abrasive views have a very powerful pluralizing, factionalizing affect on people: They either love her or hate her. Like the old adage goes, “There’s no such thing as bad publicity.”[/li][li]Unique Style: No, she’s not the most beautiful woman on TV, but she is hot (in an untameable kind of way). Compared to most other talking heads she’s younger, fresher and more alluring. Sit her next to her contemporaries on the other side of the political spectrum and she’s a lot easier to look at than (the droning) Susan Estrich or (the screeching) Eleanor Clift.[/li][li]Publicity & Exposure: She seems to be everywhere. She’s widely published, on more political shows than you can count and still makes time for college circuit speeches.[/li][li]Intelligence & Experience: She’s a graduate of Cornell University and the University of Michigan Law School. Her Capital Hill experience almost proves Scylla’s theory that [/li][quote]
“she may be doing it on purpose (in fact sometimes I’m sure she is,) which I guess would make her a true genius.”
[/quote]
Think about it, could someone as far right-wing as she portends to be work on the staff of (the ultra-moderate) former Senator Spence Abraham?[/ol]
That’s my opinion of her, I don’t agree with all her all her views, but come to think of it, I don’t agree with anyone’s views all the time.
And before anyone who’s right of center starts ranting about how they **“wish she wasn’t on my side,” think about this: When was the last time you heard someone left of center lament or apologize for the thoughts and views of someone on their side.
Believe you me, they got more than their fair share of rabid pundits on their fringes too.
John, I agree she has those four qualities, and they do go a long way in explaining her popularity. However, I can’t appreciate someone’s viewpoints just because they have those qualities, especially #4. If she’s being outrageous just to get attention, despite her intelligence, she automatically loses my respect.
I find the line
ironic, since that’s mostly what seems to come out of her columns. I’ve seen her write very little that’s based on a sound, rational argument.
As for left-leaning people not being ashamed of people ‘on their side’, that’s simply not true. Consider Ralph Nader. Go to any liberal site and watch him get torn apart. I, for one, think Al Gore was and is a weak politician and a poor choice for candidacy, but that’s just me. At any rate, I think it’s healthy to disagree with those who are supposedly on the same political side as you. It’s a natural by-product of thinking for yourself.
Is that code for “I don’t like it?”
She is certainly biased and one-sided, but what has she written that you believe is neither rational nor sound.
I’ll give you an example of what looks rational and sound to me.
In this article;
she says:
Does that seem sound and rational to you?
Can you show me something that is unsound and irrational?
Yeah, like a badger with hooters.
She probably does serve both purposes, but what I’m saying is that if she’s doing that intentionally, then my opinion is that she’s not being very smart about it. I’m not saying her viewpoints are dumb, I’m saying her way of expressing them can be. If she’s smart enough to have the viewpoints she espouses - and back them up rationally - then why does she need the confrontaional, shock-value attitude? If she’s that smart, let her beat her critics with vim and vigor and well-thought-out premises.
I just think she’s a bit self-serving. I think she figures no one will listen to her if she engages in polite discourse - and she may be right, at that - so she figures if she screams and brays enough, she’ll get noticed. Only she should be smart enough to realize that the notice she gets is not positive notice.
Unless, of course, she’s more popular than I thought - does she have a huge following I’m missing?
[BTW, on her looks - maybe she’ll pose in Playboy soon. ;)]
Yes, I see now.
When she is spewing toxic vitriol, she is being tongue-in-cheek, ironic, even post-modern.
It is only the knee-jerk left that fail to see the subtlety of her wit, when she suggests the execution of a few liberals, or when she muses wistfully about converting Arabs to Christianity at gunpoint.
Think what an insight her approach brings to Christian theology!
Jesus is coming back, and he’s packing heat!
Asking for an unsound and irrational Ann Coulter quote? Fish in a barrel. Try this one:
And here’s the whole story: Liberalism and Terror: Different Stages of the Same Disease.
elucidator:
I must have missed that one. Cite and quote, please.
Are you serious, Scylla?
Ok… Just taking the snippet you quoted:
The insane Coulter gives us a false analogy. Mineta’s concern that pilots should stay in control of the flight is in no conceivable manner similar to a denial of individual self-defense. I question the rationality and soundness of Idiot Ann’s redaction of Mineta’s argument in the first place. (And BTW, I’m no Mineta fan; I think he’s been frustratingly obtuse and ineffective.)
The entire article you’ve chosen to illustrate the dolt’s “value” as a columnist contains no iota of sound rationality. From her weak opening attempt at humor to her refusal to understand how a terrorist armed with the pilot’s pistol might be a bigger problem than one armed with a ballpoint pen, to her closing snipe at “professional ethnic complainers”, Coulter shows that one point perspective you mentioned quite clearly, but I’m still waiting for any insight into either reality or actual liberalism.
And I’m wondering at the blithe acceptance everyone seems to give to the assertion that the moronic Ms. Coulter shows intelligence. While she’s definitely exhibited some of the benefits of education, those demonstrated benefits have not, in my estimation, included rationality or even the willingness to think beyond her surface prejudices.
Never said she was rational or nonprejudicial. You can be those and intelligent, too.
Just because someone’s views are wacky doesn’t mean they’re a blithering idiot.
xeno:
Ummmm.
Are pilots then not individuals entitled to defend themselves?
Anyway, I think I’m going to beat a hasty retreat. I’m rapidly becoming an apologist for Coulter in this thread, and I don’t want to do that.
I think she’s over the top (even rabid as elucidator puts it,) one-sided and biased.
I just don’t think she’s unsound or irrational. She doesn’t have to be. She chooses her facts and quotes very carefully (and not at all even-handedly) to support her stances.