Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community  

Go Back   Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community > The Academy > Tilted Politics


 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
Old 01-14-2004, 12:19 AM   #1 (permalink)
Huzzah for Welcome Week, Much beer shall I imbibe.
 
Location: UCSB
Bringing balance to the poltx board, Coulter slammed on the Today show

http://www.anncoulter.org/specials/couric.htm

"Coulter Declares 'Slander' In Couric 'Today' Show Match
( as posted on the drudge report )

In the third (and typically least watched) hour of the TODAY SHOW on Wednesday, Katie Couric sat down with conservative author Ann Coulter to discuss her latest book, 'SLANDER'.

The following is a rushed transcript of their heated exchange:

Katie Couric: To a right-wing telebimbo but one thing Ann Coulter has not been called is underneath stated in her latest book slander, liberal lies about the American right the controversial author takes on big media, big government, and most of all liberals. Ann Coulter, good morning, nice to see you.

Ann Coulter: Nice to see you.

Katie Couric: So your main thesis, Ann, is that liberals really misrepresent conservatives and the conservative movement. Isn't that accurate?

Ann Coulter: Yes, a little bit more than that, and that is that political debate, with liberals is basically impossible in America today because liberals are calling names while conservatives are trying to make arguments. And when every one of your arguments is characterized as an attempt to bring about slavery or resegregate lunch counters, it's a little hard to have any sort of productive debate. I mean I have no problem with invective, obviously. But the name of my book isn't invective, it's slander, and I think there ought to be a point to the invective.

Katie Couric: What are some of the big liberal lies that are out there, in your estimation?

Ann Coulter: I don't rank them, but --

Katie Couric: I'm not asking you to, either, but just tell me what you think they are.

Ann Coulter: I would say it's really all the same lie, which is conservatives are either stupid or scarily weird and therefore you don't have to deal with their ideas, just set them aside. This is a crazy person, it's a Nazi, someone who wants to engage in racism, sexism, homophobia, so don't listen to that person's ideas, take a quote out of context and dismiss that idea, the idea that Ronald Reagan was stupid, which I document at great length in my book. I mean that is a stunning, stunning fact. The man, the (unintelligible) guy who won the Cold War war, he was demeaned and attacked as being stupid, meanwhile winning a second term, a spate of special interest articles on senility, and senility, growing senility, and how old Ronald, encroaching Senility, meanwhile (wordd)(unintelligible) liberal media asking that justice Thurgood Marshall or justice Brennan or Blackmon resigned, life and death issues from the Supreme Court.

Katie Couric: I think I do have to bring up a section of the book where you talk specifically about me, and this is not where you call me the Eva Braun of liberalism, that makes me feel so much better, but you talk about the media bias against Ronald Reagan, and you useless a quote and open from The Today Show where we say an airhead, Ronald Reagan is an airhead and we're quoting Edmund Morris but frankly in the book you make it sound as if I was saying that rather than Edmond Morris and I guess one of your problems with even using that that he said he was an apparent airhead and we failed to say apparent airhead. And during the course of the interview with Edmond Morris I really conducted an extremely challenging interview with him because he did eviscerate Ronald Reagan in his book, it was a very, very unflattering portrayals of Reagan, they were very unhappy with it, conservatives were very unhappy with it. Afterwards Edmond Morris was unhappy with the interview and Nancy Reagan called to thank me for me line of questioning. So I'm just wondering how that jibes with your contention that somehow I'm a Ronald Reagan basher.

Ann Coulter: Well, I didn't call you a Ronald Reagan basher.

Katie Couric: Well, you used me as an example of liberal bias against Ronald Reagan, and I'm just curious why you took it so out of context.

Ann Coulter: Well, I don't think I did. You're taking it out of context.

Katie Couric: No, no.

Ann Coulter: What I said was, which is true, that The Today Show opens, I believe it was three days in a row with the announcement, Ronald Reagan was an airhead, that's the conclusion of this new book by Edmond Morris, when Edmond Morris came on for that interview with you he described that as a grossly unfair characterization of his point.

Katie Couric: Well, we should also point out, though --

Ann Coulter: The entire book was contradicting that, so when the author himself and George Bush, the vice president, was interviewed about this, also that that affs a grossly unfair characterization, whose characterization was it, it wasn't Edmond Morris --

Katie Couric: Well, actually he backpedaled considerably, if you would have read the book by Edmond Morris --

Ann Coulter: I didn't like the book --

Katie Couric: You called him an apparent airhead. You did call him an apparent airhead, I have the quote right here if you'd like me to read it.

Ann Coulter: No, I read the quote and in it's in my book.

Katie Couric: He said that young Ken Timmons, panting brace played occasional hookey from the White House speech writing department to help me build a chronology, and I was about to hire a full-time assistant, yes, it is the magic of Geneva had faded. Judge remained a history to and worst still that I entertained such heresy in the hushed and reverent precincts of his office an apparent airhead. So these are Edmond Morris --

Ann Coulter: It was also in his words when he came on your show, that that was a grossly unfair characterization, and that was at the beginning of the book, you said he described them as an apparent airhead on the very first meeting and that the entire course of the rest of his book was contradicting that, so for the today show to be opening three days in a row, Ronald Reagan was an airhead --

Katie Couric: It was one day.

Ann Coulter: -- dishonest.

Katie Couric: And also just for your information --

Ann Coulter: No you said it one day, Matt Lauer said it another day.

Katie Couric: No, it was just one day and we'll get the transcript for you. Anyway he said commond Morris beyond mazement I was fressed by the relent finalities not to say incoherence of his interviews. I didn't really switch in the book but we don't want to get too hired --

Ann Coulter: This was not only solely not about this quote, it is not solely about the today show --

Katie Couric: Let's move on then and talk about it, let's just talk about the religious right, actually, since I'm conducting this interview, one of the things you say is the religious right is misrepresented by the liberal media, that it isn't some organization that has --

Katie Couric: Since I'm conducting this interview, one of the things you say is the religious right is misrepresented by the liberal media, that it isn't some organization that has club members, and that it's used to sort of freely buy liberals in the media. What do you mean by that? Can you elaborate? Because I think that's an interesting point.

Ann Coulter: Well, it's more than the religious right is misrepresented. It's the idea that it's this Orwellian totemic symbol for people to hate, I mean you try to figure out what the religious right is, it ultimately comes down either to one man, Pat Robertson, or anyone who believes in a higher being and wants his taxes cut. As The New York Times apparently describes the religious right, I mean I'm searching through transcripts, and newspaper articles to figure out exactly what they're talking about, it seems to me anyone who wants his taxes cut and wants to eliminate the national endowment of the arts. So you're either talking about half of America or one man, and still this is used is an example to frighten Americans, it's -- the religious right is presumed to be self-evidently fanatical, intolerant, and, for example, the quote that has so captured the imaginations of gossip columnists, my calling you the affable Eva Braun of morning TV, taken in context, but the context was that speech in which you blamed the dragging death of James Byrd on these intolerance created by evangelical Christians, which is just an astonishing statement.

Katie Couric: Actually I didn't, but I'll have to get the exact transcript --

Ann Coulter: Luck would have it both of these quotes are in my book, that is in the footnote.

Katie Couric: Okay, we'll look at that, but the real problem you have is with the Matthew Shepherd interview, and again, I don't want to do a tit-for-tat, because there are a lot of broader issues in your book that I want to talk about. One of them is that you take Walter Cronkite to task for criticizing Jerry Falwell for the remarks he said after September 11th. You write about what Falwell said. Falwell it seems had remarked that gay marriage and abortion on demand may not have warmed the heart of the Almighty. In fact, here is what Falwell actually said, something he incidentally later apologized for. He said, I really believe that the pagans and the abortionists and feminists and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People for the American Way, all of them who have tried to secularize America, I point the finger in their face and say you helped make this happen. Do you agree with Jerry Falwell, and shouldn't you have focused, perhaps, some of your attention on those remarks rather than on Walter Cronkite's, you know, distaste for what Jerry Falwell said?

Ann Coulter: Not after September 11th. I did find it quite astonishing that after September 11th liberals seem to be in overdrive watching out for the statements of Christians. I mean what Jerry Falwell said there, whether you agree with it or not, is really fairly standard Jerry Falwell Christian doctrine. Yes, he's against abortion, he's against --

Katie Couric: But to blame them for the events of September 11th, you didn't find that a little disconcerting?

Ann Coulter: No what he said was that the almighty had stopped protecting America because America was no longer asking for God's help, this is straight Christian doctrine, and even if it had been some sort of peculiar sect of Christianity, as opposed to straight Christian doctrine, I think it's a little bit peculiar that everyone was jumping on the statement of a Christian minister after thousands of Americans were slaughtered by Islamic fundamentalists.

Katie Couric: You were also fired, I guess, because you wrote in the National Review that we should -- when it came to fighting terrorism, we should invade their countries, kill their leaders, and convert them to Christianity. Do you still believe that that's the best way to combat terrorism worldwide?

Ann Coulter: Well, that's a somewhat dishonest quote. I was referring to the people in the previous sentence of that column, cheering and dancing in the streets right now, and, in fact, this -- the way that was so widely misquoted is an example of what I described in my book, which is the constant mischaracterizations, which is a small word, picking out the word of parents. It makes a big difference. And these subtle differences that are then glossed over as if there's absolutely no difference. To try to portray conservatives as crazy people, as Nazis, slave owners, (unintelligible), homophobic, how about dealing with our ideas? I mean I've written two books now, I've written hundreds of columns, I've been on TV hundreds of times. The idea that someone can go out and find one quote that will suddenly, you know, portray me just dismiss her ideas, read no more, read no further, this person is crazy --

Katie Couric: Well, obviously --

Ann Coulter: -- is precisely what liberals do all the time.

Katie Couric: But obviously the National Review had a problem with these articles and some of the pieces you did because you were fired from that job. Can you elaborate or at least tell us what you exactly meant?

Ann Coulter: That also isn't quite true. I mean I write a syndicated column, I write for Human Events. That's the newspaper that hires me. People buy a syndicated column, and they dropped the column. But a lot of people don't like me for a lot of different reasons, including --

Katie Couric: Why don't you explain what you meant, then.

Ann Coulter: -- that they're my competitors.

Katie Couric: What do you think is the best way to battle terrorism?

Ann Coulter: Point one and point two by the end of the week had become official government policy. As for converting them to Christianity, I think it might be a good idea to get them on some sort of hobby other than slaughtering infidels. I mean perhaps that's the Peace Corps, perhaps it's working for Planned Parenthood, but I've never seen the transforming effect of anything like that Christianity.

Katie Couric: Well, Ann Coulter, it's always interesting to talk to you, to say the least. The book is called Slander, Liberal Lies about the American Right. Thank you. "

I think this is Coulter at her best here, making radical comments and then trying to duck and weave to avoid explaining the comments or backing them up with evidence. In making radical statements, she tries to defend conservatives in her discussion but ends up making them look far worse than before the interview. I believe her style of political writing is degrading the entire discussion of politics in America and is leading to debates which are summed-up with "you have cooties."

Anyone else have any thoughts on people like Coulter and what they are doing to the political discourse in America.

*Summon Endymon*
__________________
I'm leaving for the University of California: Santa Barbara in 5 hours, give me your best college advice - things I need, good ideas, bad ideas, nooky, ect.

Originally Posted by Norseman on another forum:
"Yeah, the problem with the world is the stupid people are all cocksure of themselves and the intellectuals are full of doubt."

Last edited by nanofever; 01-14-2004 at 12:24 AM..
nanofever is offline  
Old 01-14-2004, 04:38 AM   #2 (permalink)
Junkie
 
Location: NJ
There are plenty of people on both the left and the right who do nothing to improve discourse between the sides. In reality, most people on either the far right or the far left have no interest in discourse. It's all about invective, personal attacks, and sweeping characterizations that group a wide variety of people together.

If there wasn't a market for this type of crap it wouldn't exist.
__________________
Strive to be more curious than ignorant.
onetime2 is offline  
Old 01-14-2004, 05:15 AM   #3 (permalink)
Dubya
 
Location: VA
I think it's one of Ann Coulter's great ironies that has her saying liberals bring down the debate by name-calling and harsh invective. I mean... Reality Check...
__________________
"In Iraq, no doubt about it, it's tough. It's hard work. It's incredibly hard. It's - and it's hard work. I understand how hard it is. I get the casualty reports every day. I see on the TV screens how hard it is. But it's necessary work. We're making progress. It is hard work."
Sparhawk is offline  
Old 01-14-2004, 05:22 AM   #4 (permalink)
Junkie
 
Location: NJ
Quote:
Originally posted by Sparhawk
I think it's one of Ann Coulter's great ironies that has her saying liberals bring down the debate by name-calling and harsh invective. I mean... Reality Check...

Yep, it's just as much an irony that she gets criticized by those on the "left" who do the exact same thing. So long as it sells books and delivers ratings political "discussions" will never actually result in solutions.
__________________
Strive to be more curious than ignorant.
onetime2 is offline  
Old 01-14-2004, 05:24 AM   #5 (permalink)
This vexes me. I am terribly vexed.
 
Superbelt's Avatar
 
Location: Grantville, Pa
I think there is a difference between the two though.

You have two sides, liberals and conservatives writing these books. The liberal side is "attacking" specific people. They aren't broadly generalizing conservatism as evil, flawed or anti-american. They may hit people like Bush, Cheney, O'Reilly, Coulter, Limbaugh, DeLay etc... as liars or bad people. But not every Conservative.

Conservatives DO hit that blanket statement that all liberals are evil, anti-american, anti-patriots (traitors) and need to be wiped from the face of this country. And they are high profile.

For example:

---Conservative---
Let Freedom Ring: Winning the War of Liberty over Liberalism
Deliver Us from Evil : Defeating Terrorism, Despotism, and Liberalism
Slander: Liberal Lies About the American Right
Treason : Liberal Treachery from the Cold War to the War on Terrorism
The Enemy Within: Saving America from the Liberal Assault on Our Schools, Faith, and Military
The Savage Nation: Saving America from the Liberal Assault on Our Borders, Language and Culture

---Then Liberal---
Big Lies: The Right-Wing Propaganda Machine and How It Distorts the Truth
Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them: A Fair and Balanced Look at the Right

Really, those two are it, and as bad as the titles get on the liberal side without going off the deep end into any whackos. I'm trying to stay on people of comparable national attention. Franken and Conason, both of whom I have read, even start their books out telling us their books are not an attack on conservatives. The premise behind Conasons books is to debunk many of the slanders done against liberals. Myths like Elite Liberals control the media, Democrats are spendthrifts who bust budgets, Bill Clinton is the root of all evil.. It's pretty much a direct response to Coulter. Same with Franken. He does much of the same thing, but he does attack some of the Republican who he says are "playing lose with the facts" but never just attacks conservatives.
I'm sure you could find an exception or two to the rule. But then I could find a dozen more examples of the same thing out of conservative writers and commentators who have a much larger segment of the publics ear.
Superbelt is offline  
Old 01-14-2004, 05:44 AM   #6 (permalink)
Junkie
 
Location: NJ
Quote:
Originally posted by Superbelt
I think there is a difference between the two though.
If you only want to talk about books that have been published so far that garnered a certain level of attention, then maybe you're right (I suspect there have been books that have done similar but I don't read books designed only to divide so I can't cite examples). But overall there is a consistent, underlying foundation of attacking the religious beliefs of conservative Republicans. They are always portrayed as bible thumping, anti-abortion, impose their will on everyone else, with a history of racism, sexism, and any other ism you want to throw in. Neither side is superior to the other in their invective, their disdane for their opposition, or in some kind of higher ground argument. Hell, the Clinton administration continually (and still continues) to outline a vast right wing conspiracy against them.

As far as:

"But then I could find a dozen more examples of the same thing out of conservative writers and commentators who have a much larger segment of the publics ear."

What do you base this "larger segment of the publics ear on?
__________________
Strive to be more curious than ignorant.
onetime2 is offline  
Old 01-14-2004, 05:55 AM   #7 (permalink)
This vexes me. I am terribly vexed.
 
Superbelt's Avatar
 
Location: Grantville, Pa
Yes I am sticking specifically to the books.

I base "larger segment of the publics ear" on, Hannity, Limbaugh, Savage, Reagan.. together they hit probrably tens of millions of the people Conason and Al Franken do. And they do it every single day on their television and radio programs.
Hell Limbaugh and Hannity probrably beat, on their own, the coverage that the top ten liberal writers this year have had.

I suppose I don't see this consistent attack on Conservatives that you do. At least not in the way I see liberalism get torn into every damned day.
Superbelt is offline  
Old 01-14-2004, 06:16 AM   #8 (permalink)
Junkie
 
Location: NJ
Quote:
Originally posted by Superbelt

I suppose I don't see this consistent attack on Conservatives that you do. At least not in the way I see liberalism get torn into every damned day.
I guess it's all a matter of perspective, people tend to remember the pieces that they disagree with most and the ones that confirm their beliefs just flow right by.

I always thought it would be interesting to do a study on the number of "attacks" identified through the course of a week or month by a study group made up of liberals, conservatives, and moderates.
__________________
Strive to be more curious than ignorant.
onetime2 is offline  
Old 01-14-2004, 08:17 PM   #9 (permalink)
Modern Man
 
Location: West Michigan
Quote:
Originally posted by onetime2
I guess it's all a matter of perspective, people tend to remember the pieces that they disagree with most and the ones that confirm their beliefs just flow right by.

I always thought it would be interesting to do a study on the number of "attacks" identified through the course of a week or month by a study group made up of liberals, conservatives, and moderates.
People usually only see the attacks against them. Its also why people only see the biases in the media that they disagree with. It will float under your emotional radar if it is something that you agree with.

Coulter comes off as pig-headed and stupid. Extremism of any kind is dangerous in that it demands the full adoption of a set of beliefs.

It amazes me that statements like these are thrown around all the time as though it will be some sort of persuasive argument, when in reality they are simple self-congratulatory insults being thrown around and are not REALLY ever going to convince anyone, because in order for one to do so, they have to go through the process of being insulted, for instance:

"If you aren't mad at the Bush Administration, than you aren't paying attention."

"I hope the country isn't stupid enough to elect candidate x."

"Those who question the Bush Administration, just hate America."

blah blah blah,

Persuasive? Hardly. These statements are just meant as high fives for those who already agree with you entirely. Sadly it seems that it is statements like these that make up the bulk of mainstream politcal debate. Its all you'll hear from the Micheal Moores, the Ann Coulters, the Hannitys, the Frankens, etc. etc. The tragedy is that these people often have a few nuggets of intellect that should be brought to the forefront but these are quickly destroyed by their own collective hubris. None of these people seem to represent the average Joe, or the average acedemic, or the average intellectual, or the average working man, or whoever they claim to be. These people are attention-craving zealots who add up to the "Baywatch" of political debate, that is better viewed with the "mute" button on.
__________________
Lord, have mercy on my wicked soul
I wouldn't mistreat you baby, for my weight in gold.
-Son House, Death Letter Blues
Conclamo Ludus is offline  
 

Tags
balance, board, bringing, coulter, poltx, show, slammed, today

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 11:48 PM.

Tilted Forum Project

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2
© 2002-2012 Tilted Forum Project

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360