Ann Coulters Responds to Al Frankens book

[Blue_Chill]

Link: http://www.anncoulter.org/columns/2003/100803.htm

I'll let you all read it instead of corrupting DU with her strawman defense. I read it and I think it's one of the weakest defenses I have seen in a while. I think someone needs to tell Ann the old saying "it's better to sit quietly and be thought a fool, then to open your mouth and prove it."

I'm curious to how my friends at DU would respond to Ann's points.

[Cat Atomic]

1. Hmm.

I can't seem to access the page... maybe they're having problems.

[edzontar]

2. I had the same problem....

And frankly, it is just as well.

[Blue_Chill]

4. Try it again

it had problems earlier but seems to be working now.

[0007]

24. It's slow loading cheap site.

Ann doesn't spend her money wisely.

[Racenut20]

3. Does Ann ever actually make a point?

Or just expound right wing platitudes and gibberish.

Kind of like I remember during poppy campaigns, old Haley the southerner himself, sitting on tv and saying with that magic code infested southern drawl. "Heees ah Caaaaaaaard Carrrrin Member of tha AAAA CCCC LLLL UUUU. (prompting, of course, those of my age to remember the code that "card carrier" was the implication used in years past of a communist.

[Blue_Chill]

5. she attempts to yes

But in my eyes fails. But see I actually read Al's book, I bet she banking on the fact her audience has not.

[ET Awful]

9. LOL

She's a loon.

She's trying to pick apart the Evan Thomas's father line. . . without realizing he mentioned that the guy was his grandfather in his endnote (which is identical to her endnotes if she was intelligent enough to catch the jab).

What a freakin' moron.

That's why she hasn't posted a new blurb in so long, it took her that long to read his book :)

[pansypoo53219]

and here she lies again

he does write that IT WAS EVANS GRANDFATHER. what a bitch. and if she IS a lawyer, i am sure she would not have won many court cases with that kind of arguement.

[kcwayne]

22. I agree with her on this point

When I read the paragraphs about Evan Thomas, I came away thinking that it was proof positive about what a blithering idiot she is.

The whole tone of the paragraphs leads one to believe there is no connection, which is as she says deliberate dishonesty. Franken should not have done this, it gives people of her ilk ammunition unnecessarily.

There are plenty of stupid things she says without having to resort to deliberately misrepresenting her.

[LiberalBushFan]

27. but check the endnote!

at the end of the book!

[kcwayne]

31. Yeah, there's an endnote

But when you read the paragraphs in the book, there is no let on to the fact of the endnote, and the whole tone of the discussion deliberately leads you to believe there is absolutely no connection.

Even if it were a FOOTNOTE it is disingenuous, because you are saying one thing and then slyly going "wink, wink, whisper, whisper, oh but there's one fine point..."

That is dishonest, and suggesting that you should read the fine print at the end of the book is exactly what Al bitches Ann does.

Again, I can't stand the miserable bitch and I want to see her eating crow until crows are extinct, but what Al is doing is straight out of the Ann/Rush/Bill/Hannity playbook, and it makes me barf.

[Athletic Grrl]

32. kcwayne, that's the whole point of the exercise.

He was purposely setting up the reader to make his point to give the reader an idea how Coulter operates. I had the misfortune to read Treason and I immediately recognized what he was up to and laughed out loud when the punchline was revealed.

[kcwayne]

37. I am not missing the point, and no joke is revealed

I went back and re-read the passage on Evan Thomas (pages 9-11).
The joke that Al makes is the he, the simple comedian, figures out a great way to check those hard to find facts by doing an incredibly sneaky thing. He calls Evan Thomas and asks him! That's cool, Ann is an idiot, being a lawyer and a writer and all, and she can't figure this out. Hah!

Then on pages 12-16 Al tells us how to lie with footnotes and endnotes.

There is absolutely nothing in these pages to clue you in to a point that Al has made any sort of joke about misrepresenting what he said about Evan Thomas.

And guess what, there is no FUCKING ENDNOTE on this point. I could be wrong, I am only up to chapter 32 and have 100 pages to go. But I have reviewed the endnotes, and that is an awful long time to string out a joke...

So Ann is right, Al is guilty as charged.

As Al says in an interview with Salon, liberals look for information, conservatives look for ammunition. Well, Al, good job, you gave Ann/Rush/Bill/Sean ammunition.

[Scott Lee]

33. Not hardly

No, she never makes a point. She squeals like the underfed nazi little banshee she is, hoping to stop the opposition with an uninterrupted aural paralysis beam. And judging from her TV appearances, it works most of the time.

Personally, I think a sandwich and a screw might do her a world of good.

[Rashind]

6. Gah..

I'd think Ann were a liberal trying to discredit the right by being as stupid as imaginable(I envision a meeting in a dark basement, between Ann and the faceless heads of the Vast Left Wing Conspiracy we hear so much about, cackling with glee and shouting "Of course! I'll speak well of Joseph McCarthy! NOBODY will buy into that!"), but I don't think she could consistently repeat the things she says without killing herself, or at the very least laughing until crying. Not to mention that she'd actually let up when she realized she was actually dragging these freeptards along for the ride.

:evilfrown:

[Cat Atomic]

7. I think it's hilarious that all these conservative media whores are

forced to respond to Franken's book.

[Blue_Chill]

8. Exactly

That's how you know he nailed them.

[lovedems]

11. He's got every single one of them on the defensive

[Sapphocrat]

36. Extremely satisfying - and important...

The reason (besides sheer size and bottomless wallets) the Right wins the game so often is that they've learned to put the Left on the defense, constantly. While we're running around trying to catch every pop fly to centerfield, they're sliding into home.

If the Left could master the art of the Right's "pre-emptive defense" consistently (and not only when presented with a golden opportunity, such as Valerie Plame's outing), we'd have 'em by the short & curlies.

This is why I believe in throwing everything out there and seeing what sticks; it works (all too well) for them, and, as long as we're throwing out the truth, our collective conscience remains clear.

[mumon]

10. Geez, just like O'Lielilly's rant on NPR!

How ever to be fair to O'Lielly-re: his humble origins- there is a part of Westbury that has Levit houses in it. It looks just like Levittown.

Is there a difference then between that part of Westbury and Levittown?

<Robert Evans smokey voice> You bet your ass there is!</Robert Evans smokey voice>

The Westbury school district- of which O'Lielly's house would have been in- is a VERY rich, upper crust school district, whereas the Levittown school district is almost Neanderthal.

[lovedems]

12. You know it was a full moon last. Turning into a werewolf has

to be an all day job. That doesn't explain every other day, but it explains one day a month.

[Skittles]

14. Kanzeon

my boyfriend's father worked with Bill's dad in Long Island. BILL GREW UP UPPER MIDDLE CLASS, PERIOD. AND ALL OF HIS FREAKING LYING CANNOT CHANGE THAT FACT.

[GiovanniC]

13. Ann Fought the Strawman...

And it looks like the strawman won.

[liberalhistorian]

15. Sorry, but I simply cannot bring

myself to read anything of Annie's anymore, I do have to consider my blood pressurea and the overall state of my health!

[Blue_Chill]

17. I understand

I almost lost it when she called wrote "the great Pinochet" a litte while back. This woman can piss anyone off.

[TreasonousBastard]

16. ummmmm....

you know, I'm starting to get a little tired of this back and forth between "our" people and "their" people. It's starting to look like all they do now is take swipes at each other over inconsequential details.

This kind of stuff isn't debate, it's quibbling little crap. Might as well read about historians arguing over what color chamberpot Richard II preferred.

[Seneca]

19. we all know it was blue!

A blue chamberpot dammit! :nuke: :hi:

[Selwynn]

18. I will not elevate ann to the level of seriousness by reading this

[Blue_Chill]

20. She really should be a cartoon character

I could see her as Lisa Simpsons rival.

[kodi]

21. dont worry, the Hamster's on the job & evescerates mann coulter see link

http://www.the-hamster.com/

[Blue_Chill]

30. nice.

Hamster laid the smack down.

[alexwcovington]

23. Watch her attacks crumble in the face of facts

FRANKEN'S VERY FIRST CHARGE AGAINST ME IS THAT I TOLD A REPORTER FROM THE OBSERVER THAT I WAS "FRIENDLY" WITH FRANKEN, WHEN IN FACT, WE ARE NOT "FRIENDLY."

Yeah... so I guess you lied to George Gurley for his article "Coultergeist" in the August 26, 2002 New York Observer (http://www.observer.com/pages/story.asp?ID=6258). In the article Coulter not only implies friendly relations with Franken, but that he would have had something nice to say about her book.

FRANKEN HYSTERICALLY ACCUSES ME OF "LYING" FOR CALLING MY "ENDNOTES," "FOOTNOTES" IN INTERVIEWS ON MY BOOK.

Colloquialisms notwithstanding, he was dead on. But this was never the actual meat of his case (the meat was that all your facts and sources were out-of-context, exaggerated, and outright fabrications), so talking back on it is pointless. Furthermore, attacking this point when you are clearly wrong doesn't get you any more credibility.

FRANKEN CLAIMS I COMPLAIN THAT CONSERVATIVES DON'T GET ON TV ENOUGH.

Whatever. I've sure you have fun every night on Fox News anyway.

I CLAIM EVAN THOMAS'S FATHER WAS THE SOCIALIST PARTY PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE, NORMAN THOMAS.

Fine. So you corrected it? There's a big difference between father and grandfather, especially when you're claiming a closeness of political views. Then again -- you still ignore the fact they are separate people with independent views.... painting them all as different heads on the same "beast"

I INCORRECTLY CLAIMED DALE EARNHARDT'S DEATH WAS NOT MENTIONED ON THE FRONT PAGE OF THE NYT THE DAY AFTER HIS DEATH.

Corrected after publication? You seem to be doing a lot of that, Ann. The point is to correct them BEFORE publication. Or maybe you like having those little "mistakes" in there...

FRAZIER MOORE, A FANTASIST FOR THE ASSOCIATED PRESS, WROTE AN ARTICLE ACCUSING ME OF USING "ROUTINELY SLOPPY" RESEARCH AND "CONTRIVED" FACTS. LIKE YOU, THE AP FANTASIST TREATS FRANKEN AS THE SOURCE OF ALL WISDOM, CITING ONE KILLER EXAMPLE FROM FRANKEN:

Right. The AP has been in the business of contriving biased and wildly inaccurate reports for its entire 155 year history -- and hires journalists of even less repute.

Face it Ann, you're a pathological liar. You're lying to cover up your lies about your lies. It's not healthy.

[Paxton_Free]

25. I love

it when this lady goes on the defensive. It's one of the most beautiful things I've ever seen.

[OldSoldier]

26. The Dale Earnhardt thing is starting to get old

The problem isn't whether the NYT covered or didn't cover Dale's death. Of course they would have covered it; Earnhardt's death rocked the advertising world as much or more than it did the racing world, and the advertising business's heart is in NYC. Earnhardt endorsed hundreds of products, and after the Daytona 500 none of the ads they'd made could have been used.

The real problem is the implication here: the liberal New York Times doesn't care about the heartland, where Dale was such a great hero.

Also remember that until Shrub LIHOP'd, Dale Earnhardt's death was the biggest news item of the year.

[MrPrax]

28. Her lips must be tired

Franken's book has been out for awhile...
I am sure her review of Mike Moore's new book will be sometime in the fall of 2006 at her reading level...

[ReadTomPaine]

29. With one of her typical tourette's-style drooling seizures, no doubt.

<eom>

[Sapphocrat]

34. So it took this long...

...for her to find someone who could A) read it to her and B) explain all the big words.

[Rose Siding]

35. Cho reviews Coulter

*do not click if profanity offends you! (I mean *really* offends you- it's too good to miss unless you just can't bear it)

http://www.margaretcho.net/blog/blog.htm

[ComerPerro]

38. You gotta love OReilley, Hannity, and Coulter

"You can't say bad things about me! Thats sleazy and underhanded! You have no credibility to do this! Its unethical to slander others the way you do!

"Now, let me tell you about those evil, god-hating, gay-loving, anti-American liberal traitors"