Friday, February 17, 2006
An intervention
5 Comments:
By 
Gordon Smith, at
Fri Feb 17, 01:11:00 PM:
Thanks for this, Hawk. When you find that people on your side of the political fence are hurling racial epithets and inciting hatred, it's important to call them on it.
By cakreiz, at
Fri Feb 17, 01:29:00 PM:
Was she a firebrand back in law school? What was her reputation then? My assumption is that the over-the-top persona is a self-created, manipulative attempt to garner more media attention, and little more. Sadly, it works.
By TigerHawk, at
Fri Feb 17, 02:22:00 PM:
No, the remarkable thing about the Ann of today is that she is actually more poised and level than the Ann of twenty years ago. Hey, everybody mellows with age.
I think the difference is that most people with strong opinions might say things in a small group over beers that one would not ordinarily put into print or say in front of a large audience. I certainly say things among friends and like-minded people that I would not say in front of strangers. Ann does not seem to honor that difference.
Don't get me wrong -- Ann has always liked tossing verbal bombshells just to rile up whatever group she is with, whether fellow law students or the flower and chivalry of the American conservative movement. And I should also say that she is more tongue-in-cheek than people give her credit for being. But none of that obscures the basic truth that the public version of Ann is astonishingly close to the private version I knew twenty years ago.
By Cassandra, at
Fri Feb 17, 02:43:00 PM:
Wow. I wasn't really even aware of what she had said at CPAC. I don't read Ann's column, but then I avoid a lot of people I consider to be polemacists.
I remember one of your commenters saying we shouldn't condemn Al Gore without having actually heard/read his full remarks. I thought the point well taken, but at the same time I also thought it was awfully hard to see in what context anyone could defend the part we *did* hear about on general principles.
I think that's even more the case with what John described of Ms. Coulter's remarks.
By Lanky_Bastard, at
Fri Feb 17, 04:04:00 PM:
The problem is that she's part pundit, part advocate, and part entertainer.
Bill Maher to choose another personality (not at random) could say similar things and we would all understand it is entertainment. He can then turn around and make a serious political observation (pundit role), but one difference is he clearly speaks for himself, and (despite being extremely libertarian) is not an embraced as an advocate of a major political organization.
Coulter has a hard time because sometimes her 3 roles conflict (though she's done well to date). I imagine it's the entertainer in her that says such things, but they make the people who embrace her advocacy look bad. Ultimately, if you don't find her manner entertaining you're doing the right thing letting her know. She's savy enough to go with what works.
(Did I really just minimize Ann Coulter's racial slurs? Surprised myself.)
