Why Does Ann Coulter Have A Job? (Bigass Edited Version)

Though Coulter's opponents (including Sen. Edward Kennedy and John Edwards) are careful to not call her words "hate speech" in the article, let's look at the very definition of hate speech, shall we?

According to the above link and the words of the court, "face-to-face epithets, or 'fighting words,' [are] wholly outside of the protection of the First Amendment: those words 'which by their very utterance inflict injury' and which 'are no essential part of any exposition of ideas.'"

Hmm.

This is a woman who once openly wished for a bombing of the New York Times building. After 9/11, she said, "We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity." These are just her two greatest hits.

Add to that, this other thing about Ann Coulter. See, the woman has repeatedly spouted words of ignorance and intolerance, and when she does have something valid to say, she actually just copied it from someone else.

This "woman" is not furthering public political discourse. She spouts "words of hate" and plagiarizes other, better writers. She fudges facts, or simply makes things up and passes them off as truth. She writes entire tomes spouting anti-leftist, ad hominem bullshit with little to no factual basis, and fact-checkers have busted her at nearly every turn for her lies.

Really, "words of hate" AND plagiarism?

Why does this woman still have a job? Or any readers at all? Why is she not the pariah of the right? Oh, wait, she is.

I especially like this part.

"Ann Coulter may have committed 'treason' against conservative good taste. But she's done the rest of us a favor. She has exposed the often empty semantic difference between the 'responsible' right and its supposed 'fringe.'"

Because there are plenty of people on the conservative right who don't agree with her, who want her to shut up, who want her to go away because she does more harm for the public perception of conservative values than any liberal could in his/her wildest dreams. Ann Coulter IS a pariah. It's just too bad that's not enough to render her completely irrelevant.

What Coulter does is lower public discourse in a way that any patriot should be ashamed of supporting -- she is not promoting the free exchange of ideas. She wants to squash dissent. She wants to spread disinformation and anger, when debate is about neither. To paraphrase one of the many sites devoted to opposing her, it's okay for Ann Coulter to call liberals stupid and evil, but liberals are wrong for calling conservatives stupid and evil. That's the best she can do. Her hate-filled diatribes serve only to "entertain" the irrational right wing, who wouldn't know a public debate if it hit them in the face -- the kind of people who, in the midst of a losing battle, will resort to name-calling (see below) because they have nothing left but to venture upon insult.

In Coulter's case, that much is certain. As a confirmed plagiarist and poor public debater, it's obvious that she's a parody of a real pundit. William F. Buckley or George Will she is not. But it's not so simply put.

I don't believe that Ann Coulter actually believes the stuff she says and writes. No, there's something even worse at work here. Ann Coulter is smart -- she knows what will draw attention to her (rather than, say, the Scooter Libby issue, or the war, or any other real issue facing real Americans). So she draws attention to herself by making noise, by making offensive remarks. Follow the patterns.

In January 2006, she "joked" that someone should put rat poison in Justice Stevens' creme brulee.

What was going on around that time? Why, the Samuel Alito ordeal -- to filibuster or not? A public debate, folks! And what does Ann Coulter do, but swoop down, say something outrageous, and draw public debate through the mud. Alito now serves on the U.S. Supreme Court.

So this "faggot" remark, just a year or so later, is another redirect. "Hey, look at me, I called John Edwards a faggot, everybody! Look at me! Did I mention I'm blonde and skinny? Look at me! And don't look at Scooter Libby."

It's the only thing she knows will make money. If she wrote a well-researched, carefully articulated debate, well, that wouldn't be sexy, and that might turn off her readership. She might not sell as many books. She assumes Americans (especially her fans) are this stupid, and anyone who calls her out for it is discredited -- branded a "liberal traitor." Again, she and her supporters lower the level. She dumbs herself down to insult rather than, you know, facts. This is her strategy, and it works. It's worked for years. This is how the far right debates. It's not a debate. Venture upon insult, then play innocent victim when a leftist (Al Franken, for example) does the same.

I mean, see below. Can't debate? Then bait with an insult. Lower the discourse to distract from the real issue, then point fingers when the opponent gets worked up. It's a classic, amateurish rhetorical strategy. It's just too bad it doesn't work on people who see it coming.