Susan Campbell: I react to Ann Coulter as one reacts to someone masturbating in public
By Lee Russ
Tuesday, June 13, 2006 at 04:59 PM
Apart from the fact that I think even mentioning Ann Coulter is a mistake (which I obviously repeat here), because it keeps her name/fame alive, I really think that Susan Campbell nailed it on the head in this column from The Hartford Courant:
Resisting The Urge To Dance On Ann Coulter's Head, by Susan Campbell
June 14, 2006
Honestly, I wasn't going to address this. I react to Ann Coulter as one reacts to someone masturbating in public. You witness the bad behavior (gasp!), call the authorities, then you turn away.
But then Coulter goes and insists that everything she does is grounded in Christianity, as she reiterated last week on Fox News' "Hannity & Colmes."
And if she's cracked open her Bible, I defy her to find the word "broad" or "harpie" in there. Speak your piece, Annie, but don't drag Jesus into it.
This latest flap is just so silly. In her new book, "Godless: My Recycled Crap About Liberals, Damn Them," Coulter calls the Jersey Girls - five women widowed by the 9/11 terrorist attacks - "broads" and "harpies" and suggests, among other things, that they seem to relish their husbands' deaths and the notoriety that has followed.
When an iffy newsmaker says something outrageous or plain wrong, the responsible commentator must weigh her options. Does she strap on her tap shoes and go dance on the head of said newsmaker? Ignore it?
Commenting only perpetuates the news cycle. If you were watching CNN Monday, you saw Al Franken, who had a famously frosty encounter with Coulter at the Bushnell two years ago, call her behavior "pathological." He used the phrase "self-loathing" and said Coulter crossed the line of good taste. Also on Monday on the same all-Ann all-the-time network, Larry King conducted a panel discussion, minus Coulter, who, he said, was on a book tour.
The best her supporters can say is that Coulter engages in edgy satire, and that playing the rabid white conservative is an act. No one dare smack her one - ironically, considering this is her problem with the widows - because she's a girl.
Does she believe what she's saying? And if she doesn't, does that make her less admirable? In the end, I'm putting my tap shoes back in the box. A few more flame-outs, and perhaps we can retire Ann to the scrapheap of commentators who have outlived their usefulness.
Now, if you'll excuse me, I need a shower. This work is nasty, no matter how you approach it.
Ann Coulter. Why? Because you can never hear enough smears from a phony, emaciated, rich woman pretending to represent the common sense view of the plain people by spouting vitriolic nonsense geared only to two things: (1) making more bucks, and (2) muddying up the waters so that there can be no honest, useful conversation about the important issues of our time. In other words: The lower the level of the conversation, the easier it is for thugs and liars to win the debate.