# Ann Coulter...Why?? **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [July 11, 2002, 2:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ann-coulter-why/118425 "2002-07-11T14:58:01Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 10\ **Page:** 11
**Author:** ![quarx](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/q/50afbb/32.png) [@quarx](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/quarx)\ **Post date:** [July 22, 2002, 11:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ann-coulter-why/118425/201 "2002-07-22T23:42:49Z")
I wouldn’t necessarily call a polite and civil review pulling punches, **december** , even if the reviewer didn’t sink to Ann’s level. Just because Maslin refrained from personally attacking Ann in the same style as Ann attacks _her_ enemies doesn’t mean that the review itself isn’t a total slam-fest. Maslin makes Ann out to be a shrill, unstable hypocrite, and she does this without calling Ann names, without implying anything about other conservatives, and without suggesting that Ann be locked away. _This_ is what the neocons of Ann’s ilk can’t seem to grasp: That you can devastate someone’s argument and position without being tacky, crude, or even impolite. And no, **december** , a total blast-fest (and make no mistake, this WAS a total blast-fest) proves nothing other than the reviewer didn’t like the book. Not _everything_ is about partisan politics, as much as Ann Coulter would like to think so. ---
**Author:** ![december](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/838e76/32.png) [@december](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/december)\ **Post date:** [July 23, 2002, 3:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ann-coulter-why/118425/202 "2002-07-23T03:54:03Z")
> [@](#): > > _Originally posted by quarx \* > \*\* This is what the neocons of Ann’s ilk can’t seem to grasp: That you can devastate someone’s argument and position without being tacky, crude, or even impolite._\* I basically agree with you **quarx** , but one quibble. Ann Coulter could have made her points without being tacky, crude or impolite, but then her book wouldn’t be a #1 best seller. I guess one could say the same about Michael Moore on the other side. In getting the public’s attention, it helps to be tacky and crude. It’s an ugly age we live in… ---
**Author:** ![JDM](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/90db22/32.png) [@JDM](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JDM)\ **Post date:** [July 23, 2002, 9:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ann-coulter-why/118425/203 "2002-07-23T09:40:08Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by december \* > \*\*I basically agree with you **quarx** , but one quibble. Ann Coulter could have made her points without being tacky, crude or impolite, \*\* Interestingly enough, it seems she [could](http://www.dailyhowler.com/) [not](http://www.suntimes.com/output/roeper/cst-nws-roep22.html) have made her points without innacurate footnotes\*. JDM \*See- I can produce footnotes, just like AC’s 35 pages of them ---
**Author:** ![quarx](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/q/50afbb/32.png) [@quarx](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/quarx)\ **Post date:** [July 23, 2002, 10:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ann-coulter-why/118425/204 "2002-07-23T10:55:48Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by december \* > \*\*I basically agree with you **quarx** , but one quibble. Ann Coulter could have made her points without being tacky, crude or impolite, but then her book wouldn’t be a #1 best seller. I guess one could say the same about Michael Moore on the other side. In getting the public’s attention, it helps to be tacky and crude. > \*\* George Will, Charles Krauthammer, Michael Kinsley, and others from both sides of the political fence enjoy enormous popularity without the ranting and inaccuracy. The difference is that these people have talent. If you’re untalented, then yes, it does help to be tacky and crude, but then again, if you’re untalented, you really shouldn’t be writing books in the first place. Then again, even as a conservative, I have to admit … Michael Moore can be pretty damned funny when he wants to be. ---
**Author:** ![jab1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ee7513/32.png) [@jab1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jab1)\ **Post date:** [July 23, 2002, 6:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ann-coulter-why/118425/205 "2002-07-23T18:36:11Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by quarx \* > I wouldn’t necessarily call a polite and civil review pulling punches, **december** , even if the reviewer didn’t sink to Ann’s level. You can’t just sink to Ann’s level; you have to go to the bottom and then dig a hole about a mile deep. ---
**Author:** ![december](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/838e76/32.png) [@december](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/december)\ **Post date:** [July 23, 2002, 9:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ann-coulter-why/118425/206 "2002-07-23T21:53:23Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by jab1 \* > \*\* You can’t just sink to Ann’s level; you have to go to the bottom and then dig a hole about a mile deep. \*\* True, but a mile below the bottom is just where the literate, book-buyers are. ---
**Author:** ![jab1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ee7513/32.png) [@jab1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jab1)\ **Post date:** [July 23, 2002, 10:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ann-coulter-why/118425/207 "2002-07-23T22:17:23Z")
You said it’s an ugly age we live in; don’t you realize that Coulter’s just making it uglier? ---
**Author:** ![quarx](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/q/50afbb/32.png) [@quarx](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/quarx)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2002, 12:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ann-coulter-why/118425/208 "2002-07-24T00:52:26Z")
I wouldn’t say that this age is any uglier on account of dipshits like Coulter. Untalented screwheads have been around for a long time. It’s nothing to really worry about, as long as the majority knows that they’re untalented screwheads (and from what I saw on The Daily Show, everyone had Ann figured out 40 seconds into the interview). Her fellow screwheads sit and drool all over their TV remotes, but the rest of us just kind of dust her hatred off and go about something more worthwhile. I was really bothered by her for a while, but once I realized that everyone felt the same way about her, it stopped bugging me. ---
**Author:** ![JDM](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/90db22/32.png) [@JDM](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JDM)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2002, 10:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ann-coulter-why/118425/209 "2002-07-24T10:50:12Z")
[The Daily Howler](http://www.dailyhowler.com/) has yet another debunking of “Slander” and it’s a doozy. I mean the 7/23 Earnhardt story. AC is on the same level WRT truth as the Hillary Clinton [Gold Star Mothers](http://www.snopes.com/military/goldstar.htm) email that I received a couple of monthe ago. If the liberal bias in the media is so clear and obvious, why does AC have to manufacture evidence to in order to demonstrate it? JDM ---
**Author:** ![quarx](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/q/50afbb/32.png) [@quarx](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/quarx)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2002, 1:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ann-coulter-why/118425/210 "2002-07-24T13:58:34Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by december \* > \*\*True, but a mile below the bottom is just where the literate, book-buyers are. \*\* In whose universe, **december**? Not in MY universe. Not in the universe of any of my friends, either. Or, come to think of it, anyone I really know, period. Maybe she has good marketing connections. Maybe a lot of people who bought the book hadn’t really heard anything about her, saw the catchy title and the blond mane, and picked it up. I’ll admit that Ann Coulter is no fool when it comes to advertising herself. That doesn’t qualify her to write about politics, and it DOESN’T put literate book-buyers into the “mile below the bottom” category. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ann-coulter-why/118425.md?page=10)