Our Mailbag

First, I admit to being a facist. I have a face. I believe other people have faces. And I don't care what some conservative says to the contrary.

As for the substance of this inane letter, I only posted it because it represents classic Coulter logic. It is an argument whose premise and conclusions are the same. Liberals are bad because liberals are bad. Once you accept the premise--liberals are bad--the conclusion--liberals are bad--follows, er, logically. Do you see my point Smslking? Is there hope for you? Do you get that this is about as stupid an argument as one can make?

Where have I--your sample liberal--ever advocated perversion, godlessness, avarice, greed, jealousy, hateful speech, or demagoguery. Where have I ever opposed self reliance, hard work, fairness, wholesomeness (except for the Osmonds, who make me queasy), family responsibility, honor, duty, or patriotism?

As for fascism (if you get nothing from this experience, at least you may learn to spell the word correctly); most fascist ideologies emphasized wholesomeness and family values--the Nazis, for example, made a cult of motherhood and condemned homosexuality (after the purge of 1934); as for perversion, the only things that were really dangerous to smuggle into Franco's fascist Spain were Communist propaganda and pornography.

Place of honor to a serious letter. The insane thing is that so many people seem to think the same way as Coulter on this subject. For my further response to her on this topic, scroll down to the letter from "Stu".

Yeah, Mike, I caught that in the Times also. I'm not sure what to say about this garbage. Do Coulter and her fans really think that liberals are as upset by Trent Lott as the 9/11 attacks? Is her argument, "it's ok Lott is a racist because liberals weren't upset enough at 9/11"? Strange logic.

Thanks! I'm not surprised by Coulter's reaction (and I'm still waiting for her latest column to be uploaded so I can ridicule it; I assume it'll be on the Lott mess). Her knee-jerk distortion of history is typical. The show itself was also rather bizarre (I just dug up the transcript). I mean, what can one make of this intro:

ALAN COLMES, HOST: Tonight on HANNITY & COLMES, more apologies from Trent Lott. Will he every be able to put it all behind him? We'll ask Al Sharpton, Ann Coulter and Pat Buchanan.

Al Sharpton, Ann Coulter, Pat Buchanan? There's a trio of raving exploiters and rabble rousers. Of the three I actually prefer Buchanan, but only by a little bit. It's typical of FOX's slanted style that they put the corrupt Al Sharpton on as the voice of Black America; it helps to reinforce the racist preconceptions of their audience demographic.

One interesting quote from Coulter:

COULTER: That is the other thing I think is so frustrating about these gotcha moments, this idea of Marxist consciousness that you can read into a man's soul. I mean, really, do all of us on this panel want to go through things that we said in the last 15 years? I think not.

Never mind the bizarre Marxist consciousness line, the idea that we might worry about things we've said in the past seems oh-so appropriate coming out of Coulter's mouth.

But finally, here's the quote you were talking about:

COULTER: Absolutely. Everyone can see it's a one-way street. If Lott were to resign, I think it ought to be as part of a package where we get rid of the Fulbright scholarships and get rid of every building in West Virginia named after Bob Byrd. But I think it's worth making the point that the reason this is a one-way street is that the Democratic Party is the party of segregation and of racial discrimination. They have always been in favor of race discrimination. They just change which party they think should be discriminated against. But they are always for race discrimination. The Republican Party has always been against race discrimination.

Except for all those racist Democrats--like Strom, as you point out--who left the Democratic Party to join the not-racist Republicans.

Insignificant - adj - Lacking power, position, or value; worthy of little regard.

So Coulter is insignificant, which makes you who agree with her also worthy of little regard. More importantly, it means that I, the opposite of Coulter, by virtue of being the "anti" Coulter, am the opposite of insignificant; I have power, position, value, great regard. Wow. Give me a moment to bask in my wonderfulness.

Thank you. But please, don't hurt your TV. It's not responsible. Also there are good things on TV. Mmm. Maybe I'm wrong. Ok. Let that Coke bottle rip!

Let no vent go unanswered! I do think there is a bigger problem here and I've already reserved another domain name to address it. Stay tuned! I think your point re Chomsky/Zinn is particularly on target. If the media was really a lefty bastion we'd be watching the Chomsky Newshour every night at 7.

Stu, a few people have made similar defenses of Coulter's jogger essays but I'm printing yours because a) you're a regular and b) you don't call me a #@&!$. (What exactly is a #@&!$?)

Why would the New York Times try and slant the case to prove the juries wrong? What's their motivation? What Coulter (and you) forget is that the NYT is responding to events here, not driving them. It is the Manhattan DA's office which is, very red-facedly, owning up to having probably made a mistake. The NYT is just following up on these revelations. And trust me, New York DA's are not soft on crime. They are also not eager to admit making a mistake. And yet they are. Check out the DA's report on the case (if you go to this link after January 1, just click on December 2002 to get the report). It's a dull read but an eye-opener.

Basically the report says that:
a) Matias Reyes confessed to doing the crime alone. b) The DNA evidence confirms that Reyes raped the jogger. There is no DNA linkage to anyone else. c) Reyes has proven accurate in all his statements, including those confessing to a number of other crimes that, up until his confessions, the police had no idea he was linked to. d) The convicted men, on the other hand, gave contradictory confessions which were not accurate.
Oh yeah, one more point. In their confessions, none of the guys mentioned anyone looking like Reyes. They mentioned each other, but not him, the only one we know raped the woman. One obvious answer for why a man of Reyes' description was not mentioned is that the police interogators did not, at that time, know that Reyes existed.

Get it Stu? (and Ann?) It's the DA, not the New York Times, which says these guys probably didn't do it. And those juries who convicted them, would they have done so if Reyes, his confession, and his DNA evidence had been put before them? I doubt it. The only real evidence against the convicted men are the confessions. Confessions that were obtained after 20 to 30 hours of questioning and that are also inaccurate. Read the report, decide for yourself. Don't let Coulter do your thinking for you.

Oh lord, now you're going to make me read the damn thing again. Ok, here goes in short:
First, Coulter seems to be saying that the Augusta Golf Club's exclusion of women is no big deal, especially as women aren't being discriminated against in our society. She seems to prove this by dropping Phylis Schlafly's name and saying that nobody wants men and women to share bathrooms. I guess Coulter doesn't count being paid less for the same work and having fewer opportunities to advance (check out the female population of the House and the Senate) as examples of discrimination. I'll say that Coulter's evidence of the profound differences between men and women don't quite convince me; I have no objection to sharing bathrooms with women (it'd be much better than the current situation where I have to share public bathrooms with a bunch of unattractive looking oafs much like myself). Sure, there are sex differences--women can have babies, men can't ask for directions--but I don't think they justify Augusta style discrimination.

As for the Augusta Club's policies, the problem isn't so much their having a private little boys club, the problem is that their private little boys club makes gobs and gobs of money for televising their tournament. Similarly, if you want to just hang out with white people, fine; but if you want to make money from your all white organization, we got ourselves a problem. We are not Orwell's thought police. We can't stop people from being racist or sexist. But we should not help them make money from institutions based on racism or sexism.

Finally, she suggests it's ok for Augusta to exclude women because the news media has excluded Republicans. The logic here is completely nonsensical. It's ok for me to beat up Jews because you beat up Armenians? It's ok for little Billy to beat up little Jane because little Jane beats up little Dougie? Please. Even if Coulter were right about the media's anti-Republican bias (which explains why the New York Times endorsed Republican Pataki for governor), it cannot logically justify anyone else's biases. This is such a huge logical hole I'm surprised you missed it V. Vance.

Well argued. Even if you are a conservative!

Neither. Your email suggests you may be an idiot, but I wouldn't want to jump to conclusions from such a small sample of your thinking. Still, it is a tempting conclusion. After all, even if my web site proves me an idiot (and you provide no specific examples of factually incorrect statements on the site--no surprise, your kind of letter writer never does), my web site can in no way be held up as example of all liberalism. For you to do so is as foolish as it would be if I argued the reverse. I think Ann Coulter is a bigot and a liar but that doesn't mean all conservatives are bigots and liars. One bad apple does not make for a bad barrel. Only an idiot would make that kind of extrapolation.

I think you can see why I like Jon's letter. He's a poor "white male christian." The "real most discriminated [against] person in this country." How the poor fellow must suffer. Along with all those other discriminated against white Christian males. Like President Bush. And Vice President Cheney. And Speaker of the House Hastert. And House Minority Leader Gephardt. And out-going Senate Majority Leader Daschle. And incoming Senate Majority Leader Lott (who really is suffering these days). And Supreme Court Chief Justice Rehnquist. And former President Clinton and former Vice President Gore. And most of the heads of the Fortune 500. And I could go on, but I won't bother.

This kind of whining from white males is bizarre. We white guys occupy most of the important jobs in this country, are the highest paid ethnic/gender category, and yet Jon and many like him complain about being discriminated against. Amazing. (And yes, I know, anyone can be discriminated against; but the evidence suggests that white Christian males ain't suffering too much from the tribulations of prejudice.)

After including a line like that, I find it hard to take seriously Jon's argument that conservatives base their ideas on logic and common sense while lefties base their ideas solely on feelings.

As for patience and tolerance, I can't speak for the whole left (which includes some pretty intolerant people) but for myself, I am only tolerant of well-meaning sensible people (and this includes many conservatives). Idiots and bigots (including those on the left) deserve all the contempt that I can heap on them.

I'm glad she makes you cringe (not that I'm happy you're cringing, but that I'm happy you are sane enough to recognize that Coulter can be insane).

As for your argument (if I understand it correctly) that Coulter is simply the evil reflection of liberals' own abuses, I think not.

First, this is a lame excuse for Coulterism. We both know that there are some people on BOTH sides of the political divide who use excessive language, but this does not justify abuses by anyone. As our mothers told us: two wrongs don't make a right. (And I really do mean it when I say that both sides do this sort of thing. Scroll down and you'll see me criticize prominent lefty, Noam Chomsky, for his linguistic excesses.)

As to the specifics or your accusations... Which liberals have called the right wing the devil? Search through my site and find one place where I do this. I praise many conservatives (admittedly, often when they agree with me; scroll down again and see me say nice things about Pat Buchanan) and I respect many others. I respect ordinary religious Americans, as do most liberals (did you notice the 99-0 vote in the Senate in favor of keeping "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance?). Sure, some ideas coming out of academe are pretty crazy (left and right). That's what academe is FOR (we let those crazy professors toss ideas back and forth until one of them comes up with a good one--like the theory of relativity or spam--and then we use it). But please don't pretend that academics are a) ALL crazy left-wingers (academe is dominated by Democrats, true, but trust me, I know these people, most of them are pretty middle of the road Democrats); or b) that wacky left-wing academe somehow represents the mainstream of liberalism or the Democratic Party. Those wacky left-wingers you seem to be thinking of all voted for Ralph Nader, and are therefore hated by real liberals.

Finally, where has your free speech been denied? Give me an example. I've heard some conservatives complain about the censorship of the PC police, but I've rarely seen it in action (rarely, not never, I do agree kinds of censorship do occur, but I'd also argue they occur on both left and right). I'm so tired of this bugaboo of PC censorship that's supposed to exist. It's largely a myth, Nancy, a myth. Yes, I know, things like campus speech codes exist, but they're mostly there just to keep discourse reasonably civil. At it's worst political correctness is just silly; at it's best, it's just politeness (you know, believing that it's not polite to call people "nigger" or "faggot"). And what is it that you (or others) want to say that you (they) aren't allowed to say? I'll publish it here on my site if you email it to me.

Geeze, Stu, alright already, I'll publish your letter. Even though you compare me to Coulter. Yech. Thanks for the praise of my sense of humor, though; I do try and keep it alive and sputtering. I don't know about your Al Gore idea; it seems like it must have already been done (this guy has an Anti Clinton site, for example, but he's got LOTS of anti Gore material).

I love these people, just love them! Coulter, finest legal mind in America? That is rich. Most of the law she's done has been as a talking pundit on the hairwaves. There are plenty of fine conservative lawyers; Coulter is not one of them. And I just love that socialist/Soviet crap that the lunatic fringe trot out every five minutes. I wonder how Mr. Smith knows how the Soviets "always referred" to the left as useful fools. Did he sit in on Politburo meetings? Was he a secret CP member? He must be something. He knows how I think. He knows how all liberals think. He knows the inner workings of the Soviet Union. My god, could it be Dick Cheney writing under a pseudonym?

What is the world coming to when Pat Buchanan starts to make sense? He may be an isolationist with racist tendencies, but at least he's an intellectually consistent isolationist with racist tendencies.

I may never get around to critiquing her whole annoying book (I've hit parts of it) but in short, I will say that rather than prove her points she makes selective use of quotes to try and make her case. By using different quotes, I could make a different case. For example, I did hear about Gore's academic record, as well as Bush's. I think Gore got more grief from the media for things that weren't true, like supposedly saying he invented the Internet (which he didn't say) or taking false credit for being the source of the movie Love Story (which actually wasn't false credit, as the author himself agreed). Remember how often Gore's "stiff' demeanor was compared to Bush's more "relaxed" and "charming" style? One could argue that media had a pro-Bush bias, not the other way around.

As for the "religious right", I would argue that the phrase is useful in the same general way that "liberal" is useful. It refers to generally conservative Christians who tend to vote Republican and have strong opinions on moral issues (anti-abortion, anti gay rights) and religion vs. state issues (prayer in schools, 10 commandments in the court house). These are not imaginary people (my father-in-law fits the profile perfectly), they exist and have a big effect on the American political scene, particularly during primaries (just ask John McCain, who has been quite vocal in his criticism of some Christian leaders). Obviously the phrase can be abused and misused. Obviously, again, not all members of the Christian right think or vote the same way. But the same might be said of the word "liberal." It's a useful word in that it generally describes a large group of vaguely like minded voters, but it can also be abused and distorted by critics and commentators who lack intellectual integrity (yes, I do mean Coulter). As with the Christian right, while liberals may share a general world view, they often disagree on specifics. It is not the label that is the problem, it is the abuse of the label.

Here are 2 paragraphs from the February 2002 issue of Campaigns and Elections that touch on the label issue:
"Assessing the relative strength of any constituency is a challenge, but it is especially difficult for one as controversial as conservative Christians. In fact, there is not even a generally accepted name for this loose collection of organizations, activists and voters. The label "religious right" was originally commonplace, but the antics of self-proclaimed leaders, intense criticism from opponents and unfavorable news coverage led many to reject the term. Soon participants and observers adopted the term "Christian right," but it has been stigmatized as well. "
"The labels "Christian conservative" and "conservative Christian" are now more popular, but if history is any guide, they will have a short shelf life as well. (Both friends and foes have their own special nomenclature, of course, such as "pro-family movement" and "radical right," respectively.) With this problem in mind, we asked a wide variety of well-placed political observers to assess the influence of the Christian right in the Republican state committee of their state. A total of 395 key informants from all 50 states and the District of Columbia shared their perceptions with us after the 2000 campaign, including Republican and Democratic state party officials, leaders of Christian conservative groups, political consultants, journalists and academics."

I have gotten a few pro-Chomsky notes taking me to task for critiquing Chomsky, so I'll take this moment to reply to them all.

I agree, Chomsky is on a different level than Coulter. He is smarter, better informed, and a much more civil debater.

However, I do have issues with Chomsky. I think his criticisms of America and American foreign policy are very useful, and often dead on, but I also feel that he too often slants his evidence and is too knee-jerk in his anti-Americanism.

Two examples:

During the 1999 bombing of Serbia in defense of Kosovo, Chomsky downplayed the evidence (including the past evidence of what they did in Bosnia) that the Serbs were planning another ethnic cleansing in Kosovo, and that some military action was necessary to save the Kosovars from slaughter. He simply saw American bombers and therefore took the side of Slobodan Milosevic, a twisted way of looking at the situation. (One might as well defend Hitler on the grounds that Germany was being bombed by American B-29's.)

In the Chomsky movie "Manufacturing Consent", Chomsky subtly downplays the mass slaughter in Cambodia, suggesting that the numbers are exaggerated, as part of an argument suggesting that America ignored (and was partially complicit in) a much worse mass slaughter in East Timor. He's right that America was wrong to ignore East Timor (a crime which Henry Kissinger bears a big part of the responsibility for) but he's wrong to attempt to downplay the horror of the Cambodian killing fields.

These are just two examples. Again, I think Chomsky can say some very smart things, but I think he's also often blinded by his own agenda. I can't completely respect someone who distorts the truth, whatever their motivation.

But you never can get those 5 minutes back, and for that I rejoice!!! (This is how I shall triumph: wearing down the evil far right wing, 5 minutes at a time!!!)

Making this the Right-Wing Women Haters Network (an homage to the old Little Rascals show)? I don't think so; my focus is obsessive enough as it is (and I'd have to do that annoying Laura Ingraham woman as well). If I expand, I think I'll go broader than that. You know, the usual: general political commentary, philosophical insights, yogurt recipes. I've dipped into Brock's book. It's interesting, but I don't think he's a reliable reporter. He lied for the Right; who's to say he's not now lying for the Left. Still, some of the things he writes do ring true.

Good point, and I think you sum up her TV appeal well, but I'll try to justify this page:
1- If I convince only a handful of people to rethink their fondness for her, I'll have done good.
2- If I give those who loathe her a place to vent and feel a shared sense of comraderie, I may save these poor souls from working out their frustrations by repeatedly banging their heads against the wall. (Bad for heads, bad for walls, bad for neighbors.)
3- I think I/we gain some value in trying to figure out how the minds of Coulter and her fans work. It's bizarre but fascinating. (And I'm serious on this one.)
4- It's either this or going back to watching my collection of Sam Raimi DVDs. Over and over and over again.
5- Why do you waste your time writing to warped site editors like myself?
6- Finally, I keep on writing because it gets me funny letters like the one following yours.

On another note: Why is your letter addressed to ann at anncoulter.org? I assume you bcc'd me, hence my receipt of this email, but why did you send it "to:" Coulter?

Funny.

Although I gotta say, when the even the Weather Service goes right-wing, we really are screwed. Al Gore may have invented the Internet but now the Republicans control the weather. (Which may explain the past few weeks of New York rain.)

I might suggest a lawsuit but I don't think we should do anything to confuse the great and famous Tom Servo with the unknown Tom Scerbo. (Note: I believe that this is the 2nd MST3K reference on this site.)

Thank you for the kind words. My alleged stalkerdom continues.

Stalker? Moi? Peevish and grumpy guy wasting his time, sure, but hardly a stalker. I don't call Coulter, email her, follow her around, or even try to catch her latest ramblings on TV (the last time I saw her mug was during the Donahue interview). I just (sometimes) refute her words.

I do wonder why Tom runs the Coulter site. Is he a paid employee, or simply a dedicated fan? Color me curious.

Because I'm feeling blah, mail posting is sparse this week, but I felt I had to include at least one dumb letter from a typical Coulter fan.

I have to wonder, how old are these guys? They read like 17-year old high school idiots (I picture two beer guzzling surfer dudes, slamming their cans of Coors light together as they say in unison: "She's totally awesome dude! That AntiCoulter weenie is such a loser!"). Do they really think that simply saying Ann is great, I'm an idiot, gets them anywhere? Is this what passes for sophisticated argument among the Coulteratti?

It's a strange world. (And you would not believe some of the letters I receive and don't post. Amazingly weird.)

You're not the first person to make this kind of point on this site.

Is she worth a web site? I dunno. I honestly think she is bad people, and so deserves a little (ok, a lot) criticism. She fans the flames of hatred in this country and helps to inspire her extremist followers to do the same. More dangerously, elements of her views are swallowed by a larger chunk of the population who, while not believing everything she says, do absorb some of her nastiness into their world view.

Should I broaden this site? Obviously I'd have to change the name or start a new site. It's an idea I've thought about, but I'm also aware that there are zillion bloggish sites out there and I'm not sure what one more vaguely lefty commentary site will add to the equation. I'm not saying it's a bad idea (my ego tempts me) but I haven't been convinced.

(Although this weeks Coulter essay, particularly the last few paragraphs, again really has me wondering if I shouldn't move on to broader pastures.)

Honest, I really don't write these letters myself. Real people actually send this stuff to me.

One of the things I've learned doing this site is that a certain class of letter writers (almost always the pro-Coulter crew) don't actually respond to the things I've said or the points I've made, they respond to this image of me that they've created in their own minds. Larry didn't bother to try to understand anything on this site because he already knew that I (and all other liberals) was a socialist Commie-lover who has helped ruin this country and who thinks good is bad and right is wrong.

The sad part is that Larry's first sentence is very very wrong. He does live in the world I live in. Which is kinda depressing for me.

Been watching a little too much Star Trek Next Generation, have we?

(I think Leonard is joking. I hope Leonard is joking.)

I play poker, not the lottery. I don't believe in gambling.

As for my prediction...
First, there are many news stories she could have covered, for example a whole slew of election stories, including the Wellstone death, so my prediction wasn't that easy.
Second, my big point was not that the essay would be on the sniper, but "that next week's essay will be on the Washington sniper and how it was all caused by evil Islam." It was the evil Islam shtick that I knew she wouldn't be able to resist. And I was right. (Although even I was a bit surprised by her vitriol towards Islam.)

Thanks for the letter.
Here again we have an example of sane conservatism. Chris and I disagree on many things, but we don't have to descend to name calling.
I do agree that Coulter doesn't seem to be representative of Jesus' teachings, and I completely sympathize with your desire to have her struck from the ranks of Christians, but she does self-identify as a Christian and so I'll refer to her in that way from time to time. (Even if she seems to be about as filled with brotherly love as Osama bin Laden.)

This letter is from one of my students...

Where have I gone wrong? I tried so hard to lead my students to the truth. I have failed.

And it is the generalizations that get me about Coulter herself.

Just to show I'm a generous liberal academic, I won't fail you for being conservative. Well, probably not.

And seriously, what is loathsome about Coulter and her fans, which you make clear, is not their conservatism but their gross intolerance. Good conservatives (and there are many) do not behave in this way. (And bad liberals, and there are many, do exactly the same thing on the other end of the political spectrum). Let us all work towards peace and moderation!

P.S. And if your final exam is as clearly and intelligently written, you shouldn't have to worry about getting an 'A'.
P.P.S. But for an 'A+' you may want to consider becoming a liberal. Kidding, only kidding.

It's nice that I can entertain you.

Re the National Review Online firing..
The relevant quotes are: "As many of you may have heard, we've dropped Ann Coulter's column from NRO" and "We did not "fire" Ann for what she wrote, even though it was poorly written and sloppy. We ended the relationship because she behaved with a total lack of professionalism, friendship, and loyalty."

That reads pretty clearly to me. "We ended the relationship." Read the whole letter and what comes across is that NRO fired Coulter because of her disloyal and unstable behavior. Writers, after all, do not tend to sever a relationship that makes them money. (Now technically, NRO did not "fire" Coulter--she was not a salaried employee--, they cut her from their magazine, but the result is about the same.)

Moreover, read the whole letter and you get a pretty clear idea that NRO thinks Coulter went around the deep end and deserved everything she got. Hardly a friendly letter. Try for a little more accuracy yourself next time you send a letter.

Many very good points. Clearly some people think this site is worth doing, and others have their doubts. I fall into the latter category. I started it in a fit of pique and I continue because it continues to entertain me (some of the time) but I definitely won't be doing it forever. As a career choice, running AntiCoulter seems rather limiting.

What a lovely story, thanks for providing it. The anti-liberal stuff and anti-Islam prejudice is pretty standard, but the anal-sex line takes the cake for crudity and irrelevance.

And glad you enjoyed the site. I do it all for the fans. [AntiCoulter takes a modest bow.]

Liberal best sellers? How about...
Stupid White Men - Michael Moore
Rush Limbaugh is a Big Fat Idiot - Al Franken
The Bush Dyslexicon - Mark Miller
Is Our Children Learning - Paul Begalia

I am glad that just by being there I was able to bring a little joy into another human being's life.

Hi there Johan! Thanks for the kind words. It's true that, in general, Republicans in the US are to the right of most other conservative parties (actually, the supposedly liberal Democrats tend to be about as conservative as conservatives in places like Britain or France or Sweden). And, as you say, these lefty societies in Europe seem to do just fine (the food is better, the streets are cleaner, the murder rate is lower, etc.)

I do hope you're right about Coulter's media shelf-life. She is so tiresome. (Although if she drops off the radar and I drop this site, I'll miss all the kind letters from people like you.)

Let's talk about "distortion and dishonesty." You say you saw the "Headline" that "Anne" Coulter had been fired. What "headline"? On my navigation bar, I have "Coulter Gets Fired" link, but that's a link to the letter firing her from National Review Online, a fairly major web publication. On my links page I have a one line link clearly labelled as "A letter from the editor of the Centre Times telling Coulter she's fired." This is hardly a "headline." Moreover, where's the deception? In the link I deliberately named the paper. Have you ever heard of the Centre Times? Nope, me neither. You see, by naming this obscure paper, I was immediately alerting everyone who saw the link to the reality that this is not a paper they've heard of before, i.e.-it's probably a small little operation. This doesn't make its editor's thoughts less true, but it does certainly suggest that the actual firing is not incredibly significant. It's warping reality to suggest that I was trying to pass it off as a major event.

As for your statement that "I then tracked down the ownership of this newspaper and found that it is part of a chain that includes the sponsor (or supporter of your site).", all I can say is: Huh? This site has no sponsor or supporter. It's an independent freelance crazed obsessive operation. Where did you get the idea I have a sponsor? Who is this sponsor? Do you have a phone number? Will they send me money in packets of small unmarked bills? I am really completely bewildered by this assertion. Anyone out there have a clue why Jim thinks I have a sponsor?

So far as I know, there is no place where Coulter explicitly urges blind obedience to W. However, in her constant attacks on Democrats as traitors I think there is a strong and clear suggestion that anyone who disagrees with the president is anti-American, a traitor. Furthermore, I've never seen her do anything but praise Bush and his policies. The implied message seems clear: follow Bush or be a traitor.

This one is a doozy. I can't believe how long he goes, and how bizarre he gets.

You make the standard error--common on left and right--of condemning an entire group for the actions of a few. Sure, some people have called Colin Powell an Uncle Tom, but I'm not one of them, and neither are any of the people I know. This is certainly not the position of the liberal New York Times, which treats Powell with the greatest respect. I'm sure some radicals called welfare reform proponents "racist," but the vast majority did not (and remember that Democrat Bill Clinton was a backer of welfare reform). This paragraph, and the rest of your essay, makes huge generalizations based on the actions of a tiny minority (and who exactly blamed what minister for dragging a man to death?; this one I haven't even heard).

I would NEVER say that conservatives are "incapable of participating in the arena of ideas" and yet you suggest that liberals like ME are close minded? Look in the mirror Dan. (Just tonight in class, I quoted Republican Barry Goldwater favorably.)

Where do you get these myths? I don't defend Clinton; I voted against him in his second election (Nader voter). I call racists racists, not conservatives. (There exist both liberal and conservative racists.) And I've already said elsewhere on this site that I think Jackson is sad shadow of a leader. You attack liberals for name calling while in the same paragraph defend Coulter's name calling because "she can back it up with facts". How does one back up the accusation that Democrats are "traitors"? Where are the facts on that one?

There are days when I believe you might be right here, and that certainly does scare me.

Are you aware that some of the earliest and harshest critics of rap music came out of the liberal feminist left? And show me a specific place where Jennings, Couric or Gumbel dragged Reagan or Bennett through the mud? (It's possible that you might be able to find some below the belt attacks by these media bores on Schlafly or Bork, but even there I'm skeptical.) Christians do a lot of charity work, it's true. So do Muslims, Hindus, and Buddhists. Do you have statistics showing that Christians do more? Did you know that one of the 5 required behaviors of a good Muslim is to give to charity? That Buddhist monestaries have an ancient tradition of helping the poor? I'm not suggesting that American Christians are bad, I'm simply pointing that there are other religious traditions (all of them actually) which also encourage charitable and good behavior (Buddhists, for example, would agree with you on Clinton, as sexual misbehavior is one of the things forbidden by the Eightfold Path).

All conservatives loathe liberals? Fortunately you are incorrect. Sadly you are obviously filled with an amazing amount of hate. Clearly you seemed to have missed some of the teachings of that very forgiving and loving early liberal, Jesus. Go back to the bible; there's some good stuff there if you're willing to be open minded.

I have lots of work, but I also have a lovely thing called "procrastination." It's not just a word, it's a way of life.

I see, when I say something it's "adolescent name calling"; when Coulter does it, it's a "rhetorical technique." If you object to name-calling, how do you feel about Coulter calling so very many of her opponents "stupid"? I, on the other hand, never call the Coulter stupid. When I call her Neanderthal I mean to say not that she is stupid (or hairy) but that her views are so reactionary they are beyond conservative, they belong in the stone age.

If that's what she meant, that's what she should have said. Read the rest of her oeuvre: the woman attacks Islam as a religion in column after column. I don't think she was practicing rhetorical excess; I think she meant it.

So now you're calling people stupid? How mature. As for Baldwin's reference, how could he possibly not make the connection? We grew all grew up in the same Christian country with an awareness of what happened to adulterers in biblical times. Heck, it's even a gag in silly movies (check out the stoning scene in Life of Brian). He's still a mediocre actor, but that's another issue.

Why, why, do all Coulterites think she is so desirable? For the record, I don't find overly thin pundits (or anorexic fashion models) attractive.

Jealous? Well, ok, maybe jealous. Bitter too. Did I mention envious? But that doesn't make my points any less valid.

As for the three black leaders you mentioned... Farakhan is a racist, but my time is limited. Sharpton is simply a crook and demagogue, but again, my time is limited. Jackson is a sad shadow of real Civil Rights leader, and my time is still limited. Let someone else start AntiFarakhan.com, I've got my own work cut out for me here in AntiCoulter-land.

Thanks dude!
(Isn't it odd that while I get many short hateful letters and long friendly letters, I usually only post the long hateful letters and the short friendly letters?)

Just to prove I post long friendly letters, I posted Jim's kind letter. (Also I think Jim makes sense--but then I would). I will say that not all Coulter supporters are name-spewing illiterates--note Gary, above, who can actually write--, it just seems that way sometimes.

Because she's blonde? Really, I'm stumped on this one. And I don't see why it gets brought up all the time. Gary (above) has a subject head calling Coulter "lovely". Why? Does it make her views better?

I dunno Craig. It's true that Slander has footnotes, but, as many web critics have shown, those footnotes are distorted and warped. Footnotes don't prove anything except that the author knows how to use superscript numbers. If you claim as evidence for liberal bias six footnotes leading to supposedly anti-conservative quotes, and four of them come from the same article, you haven't "proved" much. Coulter picks and chooses which articles to reference and how to interpret those references. And the vast majority of her supposedly anti-conservative references come from quoting liberal and radical pundits, not from journalists. Using the same technique one could "prove" that conservatives all hate liberals, which, as your letter shows, is not true.

A regular and avid reader from Brazil! I am touched, and impressed. My reach is global. I span continents.

Fabio, I can't promise anything but supportive letters like yours definitely help keep me interested. I'm glad that these pages can enlighten and amuse, and more than 50,000 hits since I started suggests that there's some point to it all. Vain person that I am, the way to keep me happy is through my ego, and kind letters go a long way.

As for monetary contributions, if I could figure out a way to do it, I would. I was actually thinking of hooking up as an Amazon.com Associate. They have some kind of scam whereby if you go to their site from a link on an Associate's site, the Associate gets a percentage of the sale. With any luck it might make me $6 or $7 a month. We'll see. (The link to the Racism book above is part of that Amazon Associate thing.)

Thank you Tom. As for the syndicated column, I haven't gotten any calls yet. Perhaps someone out there has some pull with the New York Times? The Washington Post? The Peoria Pennysaver?

Your logic is impeccable. But by that same logic, one could argue that if liberals were not so effective, there would be no need for Ann Coulter. So I'm left with the impression that in order to cope with their success, she has to attempt to mischaracterize everything they say with deceit and lies and exaggerations.

Really? Cool.

The memory of the book has faded--like my memory of that time I had food poisoning in Paris--so I can't say whether she said "evil" in it. She did say it in her one of her essays (see Evil or Just Stupid?). In Slander she does call liberals "savagely cruel bigots who hate ordinary Americans and lie for sport"(p205) as well as saying that "Liberals hate society and want to bring it down to reinforce their sense of invincibility"(p27). Close enough to evil, don't you think?

I've never seen her suggest that she is just referring to some liberals. Again and again she makes blanket condemnations of huge swathes of people (note her repeated accusation, for example, that all Democrats are traitors). Not to beat the Nazi reference to death, but people said the same thing about Hitler's speeches. "He doesn't really mean all those things he's saying; he's just exaggerating for effect." Uh huh.

Barbra "Only Two 'A's In Her Name" Streisand, Cher, and Julia Roberts are not talented. Tim Robbins is. (Ok, now I'm in trouble. Zillions and zillions of Streisand fans are going to have me lynched.)

Both sides have their wacky elements. But wackos on my side don't justify Coulter's excesses. (Just as Coulter is no justification for their excesses.)

Thank you for your courteous letter.

Have you ever thought about the fact that we love those who hurt us the most? Denial is not just a river in Egypt! Pull away from her, Tamara, pull away from her!

I dunno about this "it was OBVIOUS" we have to spend money to fix problems. I'm a lefty and I don't feel that way. (Some problems, yes, but not all problems. And money badly spent can be worse than no money spent at all.)

Discipline and standards, sure. Where do people get this idea that liberals oppose discipline and standards? As a both dad and a teacher, I support discipline and standards. I grant that there are some overly touchy-feely types who don't believe in these things the way you and I do, Tamara, but I don't see their attitude as representative of liberalism as a whole.

I prefer to teach them the tools to think independently. Teaching them to fit into society just makes more lemmings. (Although teaching people to think independently is an uphill battle.)

I believe this is a distortion of liberalism. Modern liberals support some social programs, not all of them. And we disagree with each other constantly as to which programs deserve money (as is healthy).

So it's ok to lie because you're making a point? I can't agree. It is perfectly possible to make strong arguments for conservative positions without resorting to the kinds of slanderous attacks that Coulter uses in every column.

The news is about as liberal as my Republican grandmother (although she bakes much better cookies). Their primary interest is money. Political advocates they are not.

I think the problem with Coulter and her ilk (Limbaugh, Hannity, etc.), is that they have helped to create this myth of the liberal menace that many people, including you Tammie, have bought. You create this image of "The Liberal", a creature who supports throwing money at problems, lax discipline for our children, and homosexuality as a required lifestyle choice, and then you feel justified in your opposition to liberalism. The world is more complex than this, and liberalism not so simple. Coulter is part of a long unholy tradition of fanatical simplifiers. You say you need to take her with a grain of salt, but even as you dismiss some of her overstatements, others slip in between the cracks and become part of your worldview. And the myth grows.

I have no problem with views contrary to my own, I do have a problem with hate-filled liars like Coulter. By all means Tammie, stay loyal to your new conservative viewpoint, but step away from the dark influences of Coulterism! Save yourself child!

So, did that work? Did I convince you?

Doug, thanks for the flattery but I really think you have wronged us liberals. Sure, we have our idiots, like any group of people, but there are plenty who are just as rational and honest as I am (as hard as that is for both you and me to believe).

I appreciate your sincere plea for understanding, but I think you've missed the boat on this one. What are the untruths that the New York Times is presenting as facts? What conservative ideas have been suppressed? The president and half of Congress is filled with conservatives; conservative ideology has passed into law, and conservative voices fill the airwaves. Where is the oppression?

And again, what are the untruths? I'd really like to know.

Have you ever noticed how people who claim to feel truly sorry for you almost never do actually feel sorry for you? It's a phrase used to attack while allowing one to feel smug and sanctimoniously superior.

As for obsession, nonsense! (I wonder if he knows about my Ann Coulter anti-shrine with all the press clippings, Santeria candles, and voodoo dolls?)

To: editor@anticoulter.com
Date: Sun, 6 Oct 2002 20:22:08 -0500
From: allen g goldberg (agg13@juno.com)

You guys need to tell the world that you are liberals and will not admit to the lying that has gone on for years by the liberal controlled press and all the libs.

Ann is right, you guys are dangerous as hell. Perhaps you think Barbara Streisand is a HEAVY WEIGHT THINKER..BUT IF HER WEB SITE IS AN INDICATION OF HER THINKING SHE HAS A VERY SMALL MIND...MINUSCULE.

Thank you!

I love letters like this!
First, where have I denied being a liberal? I mean, I think I actually prefer the label 'progressive', or even 'leftist', but I'm fine with being a liberal too. I'M A LIBERAL!!! There Allen, happy?

Next, what is this obsession Coulterites have with Hollywood celebs? I'm vaguely aware that Alec Baldwin and Barbra Streisand are liberal types but neither I nor any of my progressive friends could care less. Wake up Allen!! These people are air-headed actors!! (Yentl? Yech!: my favorite South Park episode is the one where Robert Smith of the Cure whups Mega-Barbra!) Should I blame conservatives because Arnold Schwartzenegger and Bruce Willis are Republicans?!? Why so little focus on issues, so much on celluloid? I suspect it stems from the superficial and vapid (un)intellectual nature of Coulter and her crew. (And, as always, I emphasize that I draw a very thick line between Coulter and serious conservatives.)

From: JAJ
To: editor@anticoulter.com
Subject: Ex-Clinton lover?
Date: Mon, 7 Oct 2002

I don't know if anyone has floated this idea before because I haven't read all the e-mails that have been sent to you, but do you think that (just maybe) our friend Ann could be a jilted old flame of Bill Clinton's? After all, her initial rise to stardom did occur as a direct result of Monicagate. (Well, to be more precise it occurred as a result of Regnery, the publishing house that turned Clinton-bashing into an industry and whose cheap-looking books mysteriously become best-sellers before they're even printed). Anyway. . .just a hunch. Oh, just as an aside, I noticed that quote from Ann about how much she loves Texas women. I wonder if she feels this way about Ann Richards and Molly Ivins.

Thank you so very much for leaving the nightmare image of a Coulter/Clinton encounter etched on my poor brain. Yech.

From: Hibiscus1973@aol.com
Date: Sat, 5 Oct 2002 17:23:44 EDT
Subject: dems and criminals,perfect together
To: editor@anticoulter.com

ann has it right dems are liars cheats and hate the american people and the usa. watch how they hide and lie at the mention of protection of the usa and its people.
they see the viet cong under there beds,as we watch in horror as one after another pulls a jane fonda in this very important time.these people worship evil and are very
happy to support any foe of the usa.it is dem history.ted kennedy a very brave man could not get a whore across a bridge,he lied he hated and and he still does.but he is not alone the whole kennedy clan are the worst this nation has ever produced.eternal flame my ass.ann is it and we know it,you dems offer nothing,give nothing,take everything.the american people know what you are and will beat you down to the ground.screw the dems/traitors/crimanals.

I'm sure a psych-major could do wonders with this letter. Note the use of all lower-case letters and lack of spaces after most punctuation. Just a wee bit obsessive me thinks.

As for the content, or lack thereof...
If Democrats are liars, cheats, traitors, and criminals, that makes means half the country (the Democratic half) are liars, cheats, traitors, and criminals. Does Hibiscus really think this is true? Why do Coulter and her fans always accuse Democrats of being so evil? I never say Republicans are evil, and I've never heard a serious Democrat say so either (I discount the lunatic, Coulterlike fringes of the Democratic party), yet Democrats are continuously labeled in her columns, and in letters of fans like Hibiscus, as being practically Satanic.

From: "KS"
To: editor@anticoulter.com
Subject: Loved Anticoulter
Date: Sat, 5 Oct 2002

You really need to get a life.
Don't you understand you are proving Ann's point?

Think about it

I can't agree that I'm proving Coulter's point. (I find it hard to believe she actually has a point.)

However, you are quite right that I need to get a life. If anyone out there has one they'll sell me cheap, please let me know.

Date: Fri, 04 Oct 2002
From: d.stephano@comcast.net
To: carl@anticoulter.com

What's your problem? Can't handle hearing the truth? You are not an American.
You are scum.

I wrote back to d. this one line message: "What makes me not an American?" He did not reply.

Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2002
From: d.stephano@comcast.net
Subject: Re: Re:
To: Carl (editor@anticoulter.com)

I could give a shit where you put my message. Socialist, left-wing, ACLU, anti-government-anti-American morons like you are terrorists by definition. Robin Hood you areÊnot - Asshole you are. You cannot handle the truth and apparently cannot handle what this country has to offer. This is a land of opportunity. You want it to be a land of restriction. Being an idiot is your right, but making others become idiots because you are and idiotÊis asinine.
Do me a favor and print a hard copy of this message and shove it up your ass.

I think this country has a lot to offer but clearly a good education for everyone has yet to be achieved, given the evidence of d.stephano's incoherent and illogical screed. I'll do him a favor and try to help him to clarity.

I am not a socialist. I am not anti-Ameircan. It is true, I am left-wing. As for the ACLU, how can you attack something called the AMERICAN Civil Liberties Union? The purpose of the ACLU is defend rights enshrined in the US Constitution, little things like freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom from unreasonable search and seizure. If you don't like these rights, it is you who are un-American. I also don't understand how you can accuse me of being anti-government and socialist at the same time. I thought us lefty socialists wanted lots and lots of government?

As for your profanity, if you can't make your case without cursing, you probably can't make your case at all. Have a nice day.

From: Pam W.
To: editor@anticoulter.com
Date: Tue, 1 Oct 2002

Who do you think is the liberal counterpart to Ms. Coulter? I could give you a list of a dozen! Fair and balanced? I think not! One must be careful how one crucifies another person. This is America and we are supposed to have a First Amendment guarantee of freedom of speech. Do we or don't we?Ê

Thank you!

Crucify? I simply use Coulter's own words to damn her; if she hadn't handed me the hammer and nails, I couldn't do a thing with her. As for free speech, I think you have a confused idea of what it means. Coulter can speak freely. And then I can criticize her freely. Free speech does not mean speech free from criticism. You are welcome.

Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2002
From: Jude T.
To: editor@anticoulter.com
Subject: Bravo!

Your column is akin to a breath of fresh air in the stagnant atmosphere of cyberspace. I extend my gratitude for your witty commentary--it's a dying art, it appears--and your sober take on Ms. Coulter's polarizing invective.
Oh, for the record, Ann Coulter is evil and stupid.

Jude T.

Thanks Jude!

From: joan RE (REJOAND@msn.com)
To: editor@anticoulter.com
Subject: Why?
Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2002

Why would anyone spend their time bashing ANYONE. Your site is REALLY dopey. I've seen Ann on TV & read her first book on Clinton.
Ann is so outspoken she is truly to be admired. She's not afraid to speak her mind .Obviously she is extremely popular as she was on the NY Times best seller list for weeks.
Most liberals dislike her because they feel threatened by her but can't see that or admit it even to themselves.
Think about this. Anyone who dwells & obsesses on negatives is telling more about themselves than their subject.

Joan, you ask a good question. Why would Coulter spend her time bashing liberals? She is really dopey. And her dwelling on negatives does tell a lot about herself. Good points, well done.

Outspoken is good. Popular is good. A best seller, well she must be a genius. Let's see, Michael Moore's Stupid White Men and Al Franken's Rush Limbaugh Is A Big Fat Idiot were both popular best sellers; did you like those books as well? If something sells a lot of copies, it must be good. (Did you know that Mein Kampf was a best seller in the 1930s in Germany?)

Sometimes my correspondants go so far beyond satire it's painful.

From: Ross H.
To: editor@anticoulter.com
Subject: Your website
Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2002

Found your site by accident... man, why do you hate her so much? If it's OK with the left for Alec Baldwin to say we should stone Henry Hyde and his family, Ms. Coulter comes off tame.

I had never heard this story before Ross's letter so I had to check it out. Yes, it's true, back in 1998 Baldwin was on the Conan O'Brian show while the impeachment thing was going on and he blurted out a statement along the lines of 'in other countries we would gather together and stone Henry Hyde, so we should all just do that'. Clearly Baldwin was not actually calling for Hyde's stoning, but, rather, in the light of the revelation that Hyde had carried on in a 4-year adulterous affair with a married woman, Baldwin was suggesting it was hypocritical of him to be attacking Clinton's morality, and in Biblical times, or in places like Saudi Arabia, Hyde himself might have been stoned.

All pretty mild stuff, I mean, the guy's an actor fer crying out loud, and he said this in the heat of a comic moment on a goofy talk show. (He also later apologized for the statement; something Coulter has never done for any of her extreme statements.) Yet there are loads of repeated references to Baldwin's one-line moment in all the usual places (FOX news, Washington Times etc.). It's as if the more extreme elements on the right continuously wave the banner of Baldwin's hate speech (which, again, I had NEVER heard before) aloft as proof of liberal evil. Clearly Ross has picked up on this and wants me to contrast Baldwin's throwaway one-liner with Coulter history of weekly hate blasts (calling for the mass murder of New York Times reporters, calling all Democrats traitors, etc.). Sorry, no can do Ross.

From: Mark S.
To: editor@anticoulter.com
Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2002

Thank you for the great site. I'm a conservative and I despise Ann Coulter. Sometimes I think she was planted by the Democratic Party to make all Republicans look like brainwashed idiots.

I've known about Ann for a while; she used to write for a right wing rag called Human Events. She wasn't always nearly this bad. True, she had an obsession about impeaching Clinton that bordered on psychotic (according to Ann, adultery is an impeachable offense; I would have stuck with perjury). But no more. Blond ambition found it is more lucrative to launch the most scurrilous and outlandish attacks conceivable against anyone left of Jesse Helms. Apparently, extremism in defense of conservatism is no vice.

For instance, as I have said, I am a conservative but have deep issues with the upcoming war with Iraq. I feel the administration's rationale for going to war has so far been woefully inadequate. According to the blond incarnation of Joseph McCarthy's latest essay ("Why We Hate Them"), I am a traitor for even questioning a decision that will cost American lives. I should instead be delighted at the prospect of thousands of Iraqis dead, because of course their infidel lives do not matter.

I know you prefer to publish illiterate attacks by Coulter fans (the one about you having penis envy of Coulter was delightfully demented), I hope you will publish this letter to show that not all conservatives are crazy.

Cordially, Mark S.

Mark, clearly we disagree on many issues, but are as one on the Coulter issue. I get a fair number of letters from conservatives like yourself who dislike Coulter, and I respect all of you for taking a stand against someone who is supposedly one of your own. Despite what some of her rabid fans write, I do not dislike Coulter because I am a liberal and she is a conservative; I dislike her because she lies and distorts and has no respect for people who have opinions different than her own. You and I probably disagree on the Clinton impeachment, for example, but that doesn't make either of us bad people. Conservatives are not bad people. Liberals are not bad people. (And both labels do not do justice to the complex views most people hold.) Coulter, because she demonizes her opponants with such venom, is bad bad people indeed.

Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2002 13:06:56 -0500 (CDT)
From: Luis M.
To: editor@anticoulter.com
Subject: Just killing time

I often don't join this kind of debates but I happened to be thinking about this a few days ago:

The REALLY important lesson to be learned from Ann Coulter is that in this day and age in the US a pathetic liar with a degree of intellectual maturity that would land her on a psychiatric ward can go on to become a pundit and become filthy rich if she has the right millionaires giving her access to the airwaves.

If opinion-making in the US required not just money but intellectual integrity the only liberals that would have to put up with Ann Coulter would be the social workers of welfare agencies.

This is the true mystery of Coulter: Why do people support her? Her opinions are so extreme, and her invective so vile, yet she has followers in droves. It makes one wonder about ugly divisions that must exist in our country to make a Coulter possible.

From: "Schmidt" (schmidt83@charter.net)
To: editor@anticoulter.com
Subject: Ann C
Date: Mon, 23 Sep 2002 20:04:04 -0500

Maybe if you don't like like what she has to say you ought to CRAWL back under the rock you came from, she is a patriot, you are maggots.

A minute later, Schmidt sent AntiCouter another letter...

From: "Schmidt" (schmidt83@charter.net)
To: editor@anticoulter.com
Subject: Ann C
Date: Mon, 23 Sep 2002 20:05:45 -0500

If you don't like what this patriot has to say, maybe you MAGGOTS ought to call back under your rock.

As you can see, the 2nd letter is much improved. Capitalizing "maggots" made all the difference.

From: "Alison Marquardt" (marquara@hotmail.com)
To: carl@anticoulter.com
Date: Sat, 21 Sep 2002 03:19:18 -0400

She probably has more qual's than you do, and definitely has a sharper wit. Is this penis envy perhaps? Or just resentment over the fact she has more balls than any woman I know...

Alison

Quals? And the "sharper wit" line really cuts. But the real issue here is my penis envy for Ann's balls. First, I deny everything; but more importantly, is Alison claiming to know something about Ann that we don't know?

Date: Mon, 16 Sep 2002 15:06:35 -0400
From: Carol Storts (cstorts@summitengineering.com) Organization: Summit Engineering
To: editor@anticoulter.com
Subject: Funny...

Appropriate subject title: this letter is really very funny, although not perhaps in the way its author intended.

I just ran across your site in the Drudge Report and can't help but chuckle at your various articles re: Ann Coulter. As a reformed "liberal" and well over the age of 40 I can assure you that there are a good many others such as myself that were fed the liberal rhetoric as young women and we have seen first hand just what it breeds.

Does being a "reformed liberal" have something to do with being over 40? Will I turn conservative next year? Or be transformed into a Coulterite? Oh dear.

I always make a point of offering a sympathetic ear to my Jewish liberal woman friends [But not to your non-Jewish liberal woman friends? How cold hearted of you.] who have raised their children incorporating the liberal philosophies of "self-empowerment" and just letting the little "angels" unfold with no guidance, discipline, or authority (I know you hate that word) and evolve into the little monsters that society is full of today. [I'm raising a kid now, and we're perfectly happy to discipline the little devil at every opportunity; where do you get this idea that disliking Ann Coulter's ideas makes one a permissive parent? I don't get the connection.] It never fails that they begin to RECANT much of their childraising tactics that they learned from the liberals. It will do no good for Ann to print these issues since until you are ready to understand you will not grasp the real message. Actually, conservatives really don't hate liberals (as they hate us), but feel a sense of pity for them, much as an adult feels compassion for a misguided adolescent who thinks they "know it all" and are acting on a purely emotional level. Nothing will teach them but experience and growing up (and yes, having children). I was probably one of the most liberal people I know, a member of NOW, blah, blah, blah. I look back now (approaching 50) and wonder "what was I thinking?" [I suspect not much. You followed the herd then and you follow a different herd now.]

Yes, we understand your love for John Locke, what you fail to grasp however, is that not all people are "equal", that was obvious in Florida when those poor "disenfranchised" people couldn't figure out how to vote. I agree. [Hey, it's not just my like (not love) for Locke; our Founding Fathers used his ideas to put together our Declaration of Independence and Constitution. THEY, not me, were the original Locke Lovers!] If you are too stupid to figure out how to vote, then by God, I don't want your vote to influence public policy for me! In a simplistic way (so the liberals can understand), conservatives understood what the castle meant. [So America is a castle for the smart people? Gosh, democracy in action] And they understood that once you took the gate down and the masses entered, excrement would start to fill the halls, and that my friend is just what you have in the good old US today. Go in any public restaurant (and please don't pick the upscale part of town where good little liberals love to gather) and observe the attitudes of the employees. Hope you don't take up too much of their time asking for a glass of water! [I eat in cheap places and I've haven't noticed any excrement in the aisles (or especially rude service). I know you are too young to remember, but all forms of mass transit have digressed and moved gradually towards "just moving the sheeple around". Please tell me that things have gotten better since the 50's and I'll demand to know what dimension of time and space you are operating in. [Uh, let's see, since the 1950s we have achieved a much higher per capita income in inflation adjusted dollars, a lower poverty rate, people live longer, we get 200 channels on the boob tube, and we no longer live in a legally segregated soceity, just for starters.] I know that the current trends will probably continue (as long as we aren't bombed again, i.e. reality enters the picture) and until a miracle occurs and all of the educational indoctrination of our young people becomes openly laughable and there is some actual critical thought going on, we will continue to freefall into chaos. In the meantime, get a real job and leave Ann alone...she just calls em like she seems em......

Regards,

Carol Storts

Carol, hello, earth to Carol? We are not descending into chaos, we are richer, more powerful, and safer than we have been in fifty years. Sure, there are some nasty things out there (terrorist threats, nasty blonde pundits) but they don't compare to the vast dangers of the 1950s. Get a grip and stop writing silly letters.

From: HouseDr2001@aol.com
Date: Mon, 16 Sep 2002 08:24:33 EDT
Subject: Are you Serious?
To: editor@anticoulter.com

Is it jealousy that motivates you? Or your lust for this attractive woman that you will never get to know? You come across as a scorned suitor determined to "get even".

Lust for Coulter? Scorned suitor? Good heavens no. If I was going to get obsessed over a celebrity it would be someone more along Salma Hayek's lines. Why are all Coulter's fans so convinced she's a goddess of beauty? Very odd.

From: "Ron Mc Intyre" (fri2@bellsouth.net)
To: editor@anticoulter.com
Subject: Anti-Anticolter Comments:
Date: Fri, 13 Sep 2002 15:15:43 -0400

Editor:

You state in one of your articles that Rudy G. is for the death penalty, but you are not. That does not make him good and you evil. No, but it does make his position on the Death penalty right - and therefore, good, and yours - evil. God1s Word is Truth, John 17:17. It speaks plainly to the matter of he-who-sheds-man1s-blood [takes his life] by MAN shall his Blood be shed. You set yourself above God. That is evil. You speak of your father-in-law as a born-again, conservative Christian, and you are not. That doesn1t make him good, and you not. W R O N G! If he is as you declare born-Again, then, by the Grace of God, he is good. By virtue of the fact that you deny the Sovereign of the Universe His rightful due - your submission to His Will, you are evil. By virtue of this fact alone, you are incapable of making any accurate assessment of Ann Colter nor her assessment of reality in our times. You are - anti- Colter... anti-conservative, thus you must be a self proclaimed liberal. A true liberal is a magnanimous, generous, noble individual. You and your kind are Not liberal in the classic sense. ÊA liberal in politics is one that takes away what our Fore-fathers fought for and left us - our Constitution. Their world view to any honest Inquiry into history, shows them to be deeply influenced by the Word of God. To 'loosen the constraints' of the Constitution and its godly tenets is to Îfree1 people from the tyranny of Truth, but that is only what evil people want. ÊTo conserve its principles is not evil - but good. Any rightly taught, honest patriot would want to see a continuance of what made America great. All that was due to our Godly heritage and especially as it is bound up in our Constitution. Rome fell because the Îliberals1 catered to the whims of the capricious mob. So will we if the will of liberals - so called - prevails.

I get it. I don't believe what you believe so that makes me evil. Along with 95 percent of the people on this planet.

As for the "Rome fell" line, go back to the history books. When Rome fell it was being run by ruthless Emperors, not wishy-washy liberals.

But I quibble. This letter is so lovely in its pure insanity that any comments of mine seem superfluous.

From: MonBob
Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2002 16:49:27 EDT
Subject: Amazing
To: carl@anticoulter.com

Great stuff...guard against the tendency to become the enemy...but really great stuff...

Thanks! I'm much too lazy to ever become the enemy, so don't worry.

From: "Jeff Butler" (jbutler452@attbi.com)
To: editor@anticoulter.com
Subject: Re: Coulter
Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2002 09:27:02 -0400

Coulter is classy, smart, witty, straight, beautiful and God fearing.

False, maybe, false, true, I don't think so, she should be.

You are probably an ugly, fat, ignorant, gay, humanist. Wake up and smell the coffee.

False(!), mostly false, aren't we all, false, true. I drink Diet Dr. Pepper.

From: DH
To: carl@anticoulter.com
Date: Mon, 9 Sep 2002 15:58:38 -0500

Carl,

I just wanted to send you a note to tell you how much I enjoy your website. I stumbled across it a number of weeks ago, and have been a regular visitor ever since. It is great to hear reasoned responses to Ann's venomous outbursts. Keep up the good work.

Dave H.

Thanks a lot Dave. I'll see how long I can keep this going.

Date: Mon, 9 Sep 2002 12:14:37 -0400
From: Aaron
To: editor@anticoulter.com

I would like your opinion as to why her views are so popular with a large segment of the American public. She has been selling a lot of books. I'm sure you would agree that if she had not met with popular success there would be no reason for your site. I suspect there must be some truth to her views, especially regarding The Times, although you can make a case that she does overdue it at times.

Well, Aaron, why is she so popular? I have only guesses. Clearly she feeds some need by a lot of people to target liberals and others who they perceive as the enemy. Why this perception? That questionwould require a nice long essay to answer and it would probably be wrong anyway (although I think it is a question very worth exploring.

Some truth to her views because she is so popular? By that logic, there must have been some truth to the Nazi views because they were so popular in Germany in the 1930s. The popularity of an idea or a person has very little correlation with its/their worth. Judge her on her words, not on her popularity.

From: "CHARLES VANNICE" (cvannice@msn.com)
To: editor@anticoulter.com
Subject: ann coutler
Date: Sun, 8 Sep 2002 22:50:20 -0700

Why don't you concentrate on the things that Ann says about liberals in "Slander" instead of having such a disorganized site? She gives you an outline in the book.....why don't you just take them one at a time and go through them?

The trouble is that liberals cannot deal with truth, which is the same reason she, or Bernard Goldberg, never get invited to be interviewed on ABC, CBS, NBC, and CNN. But, fewer and fewer people are watching the dominant liberal media anyway, so it really doesn't matter anymore.

Good luck, and I hope this helps.

Bill in Kansas City

I wrote the following email back to Bill, to which he never replied. They never do.

Read "The Misunderstood Liberal" or "Evil or Just Stupid?", both of which hit on Slander. Coulter's basic argument is that liberals are evil people. She says so explicitly, repeatedly. Is this the truth you are speaking of?

(and why does your email header read "Charles Vannice" while you sign your email "Bill"?)

A poetry submission by Mary "Lynx" Schmidt

If you must read a real revolter,
Pick up the latest by Ann Coulter.
For nothing raises Coulter's dander
More rapidly than left-wing slander.
She calls herself an intellectual
And yet her thinking's hyper-sexual.
She sharpens up her longest knives
For men unfaithful to their wives.
Islamic men, of dark complexion,
Are forced into a new direction:
"Convert them all to Christianity!"
Though what she's preaching is insanity.
Inmerse yourself in Coulter's wrath,
And don't forget to take a bath.

From: "Jeffrey Erickson" (jeffrey.m.erickson@worldnet.att.net)
To: carl@anticoulter.com
Subject: Job offer
Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2002 23:11:15 -0400

Carl,

After reading your hate speech at your AntiCoulter.com site, I'd like to hire you to neuter yourself. Unmistakably, your brand of racist, hate-filled, and extremist political propaganda will be a sick, perverted infestation on society wherever it shows up. You mention you have a 3 year old child. Truly, truly amazing. None of us thought you had it in you (nor did we have any reason to.) For the child's sake, I hope you never receive the chance to further pass on your DNA, your vicious, narrow-minded, and bizarre views on life, or your ramblings on society in the US. I sincerely hope, Carl, that your child grows up to be a responsible, decent, and well-grounded person. However, from what I've seen of half the parentage, (i.e., you, not knowing the mother,) your child has some severe genetic disabilites to overcome. You seem to be terminally addicted to the extremist liberal fascination with a total lack of common sense, a prioritization of emotion over reason, and a cheerful hypocrisy regarding objective reality. Seriously, Carl, I wish only the best for your child - but please don't have any more. The competition for the Darwin Award is already fierce, with clueless Liberals leading the pack. You'd be doing us all a favor by choosing sterility. Think of it as adding to the average IQ of the US population.

I urge you to consider a complete and immediate vasectomy. Rest assured, I get the sense that you won't be losing much. You'll also be able to sleep better knowing that you'll never inadvertantly add another twisted, semi-moronic person such as yourself to the US gene pool. It's a legacy, Carl, you can be proud of - probably the only one you have available, in light of your demonstrated deficiencies.

All the best,
Jamaal Michaels

First, a thanks to Bob Deitz (the letter below). There are levels of hate mail and compared to this one, Bob's is positively friendly. Now to the letter.

We start by noting the odd name conflict. The letter's header says it is from "Jeffrey Erickson" but it's signed by "Jamaal Michaels." Usually when this sort of thing happens, somebody is trying to hide something. Anonymity is one thing, but using someone else's name is at the very least rude.

Now as to the letter's content:
The personal attacks are ugly and very odd. He wants me to neuter myself. Make myself not male? If you mean castrate, J/J, say so, but I don't know how I'd go about neutering myself even if I cared to follow your suggestion. While suggesting my son (the sweetest kid you'll ever meet) is somehow genetically flawed, of sub-average IQ, and semi-moronic is pretty twisted. You want to attack me J/J, go ahead, but leave my kid alone you gutless coward. I know not all Coulterites are this evil, but J/J certainly doesn't make her fan club look very good.

As for the substance of his criticisms, there is none. Amazingly, despite all my previous (posted) requests to Coulterites to be SPECIFIC in their attacks, J/J only calls me names, without pointing to any specific flaws in my arguments. I make very specific criticisms of Coulter's words and ideas. Find one of these and tell me why it's incorrect. (Heck, I even admit the times when i think she's right, rare though those may be.)

J/J calls me hate-filled and racist. Hate-filled, perhaps, although you can't find any words written by me that are as hate-filled as J/J's screed. Racist? When have I even discussed race? Coulter is white. I'm white. It's white on white! (Although, Tanya E., my main in town critic and grammar checker, is black; I wonder if I should ask her if the site is racist? Tanya?) Did J/J just call me racist because it sounded like a nasty thing to say? Vewy odd.

Someone out there want to explain J/J to me? Did he actually read any part of the site? Or did he just say "Aha, someone is attacking Ann Coulter, I must insult him, his poor kid, and toss whatever nasty labels are floating around in my head at him!"? Or maybe, and I think this one is a real possibility, he thought that by being particularly venomous he could get his name (whatever it is) put on the web. Well, if that was his goal, he's achieved it. I realize I may be catering to his strange desire to get posted here on the wildly popular AntiCoulter.com, but I figure it's worth it as service to my community, demonstrating as it does some of the ugly slime that lurks below the radar in our society. In the future however, J/J, make a web site--it's not hard--and put your name up in 48point type.

There is some real nasty stuff out there folks, something I didn't realize quite so clearly before I started this web site.

This just in! I did a search on J/J's email address, and I found this letter addressed to Monkeyfist.com (a site I was previously unaware of). The style matches and, like my letter, the email "from" is Jeffrey but the letter is signed by Jamaal. Very, very strange.

From: BobDeitz@aol.com
Date: Sat, 24 Aug 2002 09:37:29 EDT
Subject: ac.com
To: editor@anticoulter.com

Dear Carl:

You liberals really don't get it. Don't you know that thinking people who read your nonsense don't hate you, don't even dislike you, in fact, would probably enjoy meeting you? That's because, more than anything else, you are amusing.

Absent cogent, intellectual arguments, all the AC (anti-Coulter, and anti-conservative) morons are able to muster is arguments ad hominem. Which is, of course, always the fallback position for someone without sensible moral conviction.

It's pathetic. But revel in your ignorance. Enjoy your stupidity, even as you wander even deeper into the forest of ignorance you inhabit..

When you have a cogent, intelligent argument against humanity and human nature, then perhaps you can emerge into the daylight of truth.

I am, sincerely yours, in Rum Riot & Rebellion,

Robert Deitz

I wrote back to Bob a one line letter:

"Please point to one ad hominem attack on the site."

There has been no reply. Which is, again, typical of my pro-Coulter mail. And again, I do not attack conservatives when I say this. I've been having a nice correspondence with a conservative (Ken C.) who disagrees with almost every belief I hold dear, but who has no love for Coulter. Coulterites, like Coulter (and unlike real conservatives), love ad hominem attacks even as they falsely accuse their opponents of using the same methods. And when it comes down to it, they fail to make their case. They've yet to even TRY to find something on this site which is a personal attack (or even untrue).

Still, if Bob likes rum he can't be all bad.

From: Jmc3900@aol.com
Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2002 01:07:07 EDT
Subject: (no subject)
To: editir@anticoulter.com

If you wert such a pervert you would know that Ann was telling the the truth.Your mind is clouded with junior high thoughts,you may still be protesting the viet nam war. Mabe you could grow up, and break that deal you made with the devil

Wert? Pervert? Ann the truth? My mind is clouded and I don't understand these concepts. (Although on perversion, I did almost date a Canadian once. Does that count?) As for the deal with the devil, I'd gladly accept outside legal advice on this one. Clearly the devil outmaneuvered me on the bargaining table given my obvious lack of fame and fortune. (Picture the T-Shirt: "I sold my soul to the devil and all I got was this lousy AntiCoulter web site!")

Side note: Need to ask other lefty web sites if they get the same intellectually vibrant email. In the lifetime of this web site, I've only received one, ONE rational email defending Coulter (from Andrew M.; thanks Andrew).

From: Maschler10@wmconnect.com
Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2002 00:05:23 EDT
Subject: Ann........
To: editor@anticoulter.com

.......she really bothers you, doesn't she? Love to see liberals respond as...well...as liberals....Hasn't changed much thru history....

....but everybody has to be doing and/or thinking or saying something, huh? You'll have to step up a lot to "reach down" to her level.

The mail was pretty boring this week. Some nice letters (but who needs to read those?) and then lots of incoherent conservative diatribes. This one was rather cute, and at least it was short. Although I do wonder about his/her understanding of history.

From: Robert N.
To: editor@anticoulter.com
Subject: Coulter
Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2002 10:53:42 -0400

The person who writes this web site doesn't have the balls to put his/her/its (probably her) name on it. Typical liberal coward.

A few people have commented on this fact (most more politely). It's true, I don't post my name. Posting my moniker would leave me open to a lot of nastiness. And there is a lot of it out there. Death threats, vague threats, profane and confused insults, my email box is filled with such things. I'd rather not encourage their arrival in my real life. I have thought about changing this policy (mostly for reasons of ego), and I'd be interested in thoughtful opinions from out there, but right now, AntiCoulter is staying under wraps.

As for "typical liberal coward"... Michael Moore, James Carville, Jim Hightower, Bob Herbert, all liberals, all put their names out there to receive hate mail and the like. Hardly cowardly. Of course, they, like Coulter, get paid for it. I don't get anything. No money = anonymity.
Finally, why am I "probably" a woman? Are women automatically cowards? Automatically liberals? Does Ann Coulter know this?

Just in, in an ironic twist, Robert just sent an email asking that his name be removed so he wouldn't be exposed to death threats. The irony is delicious, no? [And to those 200 or so of you who, according to my web counter, saw Robert's last name before I removed it, please don't send him death threats. I think people who send cowardly threats are loathesome. Nobody deserves such abuse, no matter what their political opinions.]

Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2002 12:33:08 -0700
Subject: Ann Coulter - Straw Dog or Republican Pundit
From: Mark K.
To: editor@anticoulter.com

Lemme first start by saying I love your site, and am glad there's a place I can point Coulteristas when they spew her drivel in arguments.

Many thanks.

I was wondering, however, why the media promotes Coulter? She is not the true voice of even the republicans - most Repubs I know are goofy, but they understand why assassinating the leaders of Afghanistan and converting them to Christianity won't work, as well as why executing Liberals is not a good idea. Most conservatives (excluding my dad, who for some reason, loves her stuff) see her for what she is - fascist.

In fact, one of my old professors and I were talking about her. He is the republican's republican - believes in free markets, Adam Smith's invisible hand, etc. He makes a point to say that Coulter is pro-fascist, and a good Republican would never want to include her as one of them in the same way a Democrat would never want to include the SLA as one of them.

So I would think (and I've gotten some mail from Republicans saying exactly that).

Which brings me to why the media is pushing Coulter? Are they doing so to show how wacky the Right could be, thus making the Limbaughs and Hannitys look downright compassionate in comparison? Or is there a tide of fascism among the executives of the media companies these days?

-Mark

Well, I can't be sure, but I suspect that the bottom line is money, as it so often is. The media, despite paranoid conservative rantings, is not a bastion of liberalism. It's a bastion of capitalism. Sure, most reporters are Democrats, but moderate centrist Democrats, and their bosses are plutocrats. Coulter clearly attracts an audience and helps to sell commercials. She is profitable. Why is she so popular? A very good question, which someone (maybe me) should address in an essay sometime soon. My quick thoughts are: she's attractive (some think) and blonde, she is good at shallow verbal sparring, she appeals to a large segment of the population which has bought the demonization of liberals line of propaganda.

Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2002 18:56:10 -0400
From: K [deleted] M [deleted]
To: editor@anticoulter.com
Subject: Truth in A.C.

Dear Editor,

Ann Coulter is something you just can't handle, keenly intelligent, articulate, conservative and damn hot. The cover of her latest book has libs pulling out their hair because they have nothing close in the way of competition. Who do you have- Hillary, Katie Couric maybe Janet Reno ?

This is the first time I have visited your site and I must say that you fit the stereotype of a New Yorker, no class, emotional and mean spirited. You have got to be a Mets fan. BM[deleted]

We have to wonder why "K" (a woman's name I've deleted) is sending me email signed by "B". Is "B" using his mom's email account? Tisk, tisk. As for substance...

I think we have some clue to Coulter's popularity here. Almost all the pro-Coulter email I get is from men. Much of it tells me she is "hot" or a "babe". And this is relevant how? Babedom does not equal brilliance. You want a real conservative, take Maggie Thatcher. Never a looker even in her younger days, the Iron Lady of Britain was a brilliant politician and speaker. I despised her, mind you, but one had to respect her. Coulter isn't in the same league.

So New Yorkers have no class? I wonder why people like you are so upset at terrorism given that we classless New Yorkers are its target. Coulter has also expressed her anti-New York bias many times (even though she spends a good part of her year living in New York). Given the scar in my city, this kind of bigotry is appalling.

Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2002 10:31:23 -0500
From: Tracy B.
To: editor@anticoulter.com
Subject: Thanks

Found your site from a link on Drudge.com.. I think I'll buy Ann Coulter's book. She sounds very interesting.

I have failed you Tracy. I have failed to write well enough to warn you away. I hang my head in shame.

From: Jim S.
To: editor@anticoulter.com
Subject: please stop the mudslinging
Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2002 13:19:06 -0400

Hello,

I was directed to your site from Michael Moore's site's bulletin board. I read your front page covering Coulter's latest essay and visited a couple other pages. I enjoyed the education that you provided, giving the opposing facts, and disproving some of her misquotes. What I hated, and wish you would control, is the useless bashing. (ex. "Oh, I see: It just makes Coulter seem tough and smart to say something provocative.", "which I guess he must be sharing with Coulter on the sly", "Boy, that Coulter sure is clever.") Like mud in water, it clouds the facts and screws up the taste of your argument.

Two points. First, Coulter pisses me off. A lot. Her robotic and jejune condemnations of liberals grate on my nerves like claws on a blackboard. And so, in reaction, I get a little hot under the collar when writing my responses. That said, I really don't think I sling mud. I don't insult the woman's appearance or personal habits (although I get plenty of email which does both). I stick to criticizing her words. Sometimes those criticisms are sarcastic in tone, but what else, after all, can one do when Coulter does something like refer to the New York Times as the "Baghdad Times"? (in "Nuclear Annihilation Can't Be Confined to the Outer Boroughs") Explain carefully that the Times is not published in Baghdad? Insert a map showing the relative position of Baghdad and New York? The "clever" line was supposed (perhaps unsuccessfully) to imply that Coulter's line was very obvious, very unoriginal, and quite the opposite of clever.

You see, some of my critiques are directed at facts and some are directed at her monotonous style. Style criticisms may seem less "factual" but I think they are just as valid, given that Coulter prides herself on her wit and panache.

Do you see how the mudslinging draws you down to the exact opinions that you hate about Coulter? You make yourself someone she can point at when she says "Liberals don't try to win arguments, they seek to destroy their opponents and silence dissident opinions."

I would be much more interested in reading you disprove her "facts" with correct facts and proving how she takes quotes out of context by showing the correct content.

Thank you for taking the time to give us your web site and reading my email.

Jim S.

You are very welcome. And, as I said in a private email, while I don't entirely agree with your criticisms, I will certainly keep them in mind. I have no desire to sink to Coulter's level.

From: Tom C.
To: editor@anticoulter.com
Subject: One more note...
Date: Thu, 8 Aug 2002 19:56:44 -0500

Dear Editor:

Only minutes ago I sent you an email proclaiming admiration for you site. Well, I've just delved further into your site and I only have one request of you: CAN I WORK FOR YOU? I'LL PAY YOU!!! Please???

Tom C.

You are a most perceptive and discerning critic. I applaud your taste. I will shortly set-up a Swiss bank account where you, and other equally intelligent readers, can contribute to AntiCoulter's financial well-being. Maybe I'll sell t-shirts too.

From: CeregPJ
Subject: best thing about your site
Date: Wed, 7 Aug 2002 08:47:42 -0400
From: "Syriac, Alex"
To: editor@anticoulter.com

The best thing about your site is all the great Coulter quotes. Any time I'm feeling a little down, I can just hop over to your site and read some of the quotes ... it reminds me of why I like reading Coulter so much!

Why, thank you Alex! I'm glad to be of service. I've added another quote from the past just for you (scroll down).

Alex Syriac
______________________
"If there were any justice in the world, Bill Clinton would be arrested for imitating an innocent bystander." - Paul Greenberg

His signature line gives the game away, but he's still amusing for a Coulter fan. (And unlike many of his brethren, he neither cursed nor threatened me, so he gets a gold star.)

From: Thomas Goold
To: editor@anticoulter.com
Subject: Typical
Date: Tue, 6 Aug 2002 18:30:34 -0700

This site is typical of everything the socialist left does in this country. Always attack, make sure there are ample smoke mirrors and lies, and maybe no one will notice you never deal with substance. The left is the only ones who don't notice.

This letter is typical of the idiotic responses I get from Coulter fans (although, to be fair, I should mention that some of this site's fans send some, uh, unusual letters as well).

1 - The use of the phrase "socialist left" brands Thomas as an ignorant fool from the start. Outside of a few specimens preserved in academia, there is no socialist left in America. This is not a socialist site. While AntiCoulter thinks there should be some limitations put on capitalism (and points to Enron, Worldcom, and Halliburton as reasons why), as liberals, out of the liberal tradition, we support free enterprise and the right of the individual to be free to make as much money as he/she wants. We like America's freedoms, including its capitalist freedoms, and we'd be pissed off at anyone who tried to take them away. Calling liberals "socialists" is inane ad hominem name calling. It's also a boring cliche, overused by far right zealots.

2 - To criticize US for attacking is a trifle odd, given that the target of this site is the far right's prize pit-bull of punditry herself. Ann Coulter spends most of her time and venom attacking liberals. She (and others) can hardly complain if we do a little counter-attacking.

3 - This site is filled with substance (much more than a Coulter column) including reasoned defenses of liberalism (with a brief history of the same) and brilliant critiques of Coulter's inaccuracies.

4 - Most AntiCoulter hate mail (we get about one a day) accuses us of lying. The mail never, however, gives an example. I want this site to be accurate. Find me a lie on it and I'll correct it.

5 - My annoyance at Thomas and his ilk is NOT directed against all conservatives. His type actually does true conservatism a deservice by tainting their name with nonsense. There are many conservatives I respect (listed elsewhere on this site), even if I don't agree with them. AntiCoulter targets an invective spewing caricature who pretends to be a conservative.

6 - If I didn't get so many letters saying the same stupid things, I wouldn't be so peevish. To AntiCoulter fans everywhere, I plead just cause for my grumpiness.

From: Benjamin M.
To: editor@anticoulter.com
Subject: Her John Stewart interview
Date: Fri, 2 Aug 2002 22:28:08 -0400

[beginning snipped for space reasons]

...I'm new to Coulter, but it seems to me that she doesn't really fall under the category of conservative at all, aside from being heavily Christian. As an aside, it is important to note that not nearly all conservatives are Christian, nor are all Christians conservative. However, if it weren't for this particular conviction, I would not classify her as having any political ideology at all. She never mentions economy, foreign policy, crime, the budget, the environment, or anything else for the purposes of proposing solutions; for all I can tell she doesn't care what happens in any of these categories. It seems that her only line of argument is that "liberals are evil" because "liberals focus on ad hominum attacks rather than issues." When I first read your site, I was certain she was an actress; a joke. Contrived, like professional wrestling.

...I know now that she's not a joke, but I still think she's funny.

Well put, Ben. And I think she's funny too. When she's not pissing me off.

From: CeregPJ
Date: Wed, 31 Jul 2002 20:48:43 EDT
Subject: (no subject)
To: editor@anticoulter.com

I would say you are evil. Insidiously evil. How does your father-in-law put up with you? He has to because you seduced his daughter, I suppose. Oh, please don't take this personally. I have friends that are evil.

Is it just me, or is this a particularly odd letter? I can't tell if PJ is pulling my leg or is, perhaps, a few cards shy of a full deck.

To: editor@anticoulter.com
From: Stephen
Subject: Your are a Waste of Oxygen
Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2002 20:45:42 GMT

Hello:

I've just alerted the Department of Defense about your man-hating, commie- loving, ugly lezzie site.

We resent your slanders. Our site is not ugly.

Hoping that they decide to use a few Smart Bombs to take you out.

I will alert the neighbors.

Look up the word "Smart" in the dictionary. I can send an interpreter.

Just to clarify, that "Smart" line is his, not mine. Go figure.

Thank god Ann Coulter is around to ridicule worthless assholes like you. Any hope that you've recently contracted a lethal disease?

Does a bad haircut count?

From: "Chad B.
To: editor@anticoulter.com
Subject: a job well done...
Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2002 09:59:19 -0500

I would just like to thank you for the site. I am a conservative that disagrees with Ann Coulter's ideas and views. I just wanted to take a few seconds out of my time and tell you that i appreciate the site and the work that is done on it.

Thank you very much. I know that there is a world of difference between real conservatives and the Coulter types. (Just as there is a world of difference between real liberals and nut-job left-wingers.) Even if we disagree on issues, we can try to make the world safe for rational debate.

Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2002 09:10:54 -0400
From: Neeraj U.
To: editor@anticoulter.com
Subject: (no subject)

I enjoyed you site but I must convey my fear that we are going to be responsible for creating another Rush. The world is in trouble. Hate mongers like Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh do not need nor should they have more airing of their views. If Ms. Coulter has had an intelligent thought it wouldn't be worth having to endure the rest of it. It would be like finding a sandwich in a landfill. Her entirely planned and orchestrated talk show appearances only lend her an air of credibility. Personally, I hope she makes trillions of dollars hawking her book. I won't buy it, I already know for what she stands. But there are a sufficient number of people out there who are suffering and find the hate that these people spew to make them feel better. I fear that we are only giving her more of a platform.

Neeraj

Thank you, I'm glad you enjoyed the site.

As for your concerns, I understand them and I admit that I have wondered about the same thing myself. However, I honestly think that, in the end, words are best fought with words and it is a mistake to ignore people like Coulter. Her books sell millions of copies and she gets appearances on prime time TV not because of people like you and I who dislike her, but because of all the people out there who love her. The same is true for Rush: liberals don't listen to his show, fans do, and they are the ones who keep him going. If all the liberals in America turned away, the books and the shows would still feature rabid right-wingers because they make money. What we need to do is convince, bit by bit, the rest of America that these people are frauds and not worth their time. A hopeless task, perhaps, but we shouldn't give up.

From: "Reinhardt Wende"
To: editor@anticoulter.com
Subject: Liberal BS
Date: Sat, 20 Jul 2002 10:27:57 -0400

Your website is a liberal cesspool of lies and inuendo.

So nice to be appreciated. Of course, I suspect there are no specific lies mentioned because Reinhardt could not find any. So he resorts to, well, slander.

From: "builder1976"
To: editor@anticoulter.com
Date: Sat, 20 Jul 2002 12:05:56 -0500

I love Ann Coulter! To understand her, as a liberal, would be akin to an atheist understanding the Bible. Blind eyes can't be expected to see the truth. Ann hangs people by their own words, and does it well. Her interview with Donahue, the has-been, was beautiful. He looked like the Jerry Springer of the ranting, PC, left of Stalin, crowd. She was cool collected and reasoned in her response to his rants.

The perky Katie Curic interview was great, and as Ann describes her in her book, as the "Eva Braun" of the airwaves, Katy never lets us down.

Your site is great! I enjoy reading what the enemy is thinking(?) and can better respond in person with what I glean. Oh, and don't forget, the reason the second amendment exists, is because of liberals, and their ideas.

In the flyover! Ed Jacobs

This email makes all clear. As paragraph one explains, liking Coulter is based on divine revelation and religious dogma, not logic. It's also nice to know that "the reason the second amendment exists, is because of liberals"; is it just me or is does this sound like it's meant as a threat? Such friendly people out there in internet land.

The builder saga, with my reply, continues...

From: "builder1976"
To: editor@anticoulter.com
Subject: MORE SLANDER
Date: Sun, 21 Jul 2002 08:30:31 -0500

Enjoyed (grin) your reply to my e-mail. Yes the second amendment is a "threat," to any idea which threatens freedom, as it should be. Do your ideas threaten freedom? I would hope they didn't. It was the left in this country that supported socialism and communism, and over 60 million are dead because of it

As a strict constitutionalist I understand well the reasoning behind the amendment, and when it should be used to thwart those who do harm. AndÊI further understand the need to protect oneself from those ideas. At the same time I am an avid reader of anti-war.com, and have political leanings which would keep you from pinning me to any party affiliation. I could easily name a dozen popular Republicans who make me want to puke

Your bringing up my first sentence as being irelevent, since it had a religious overtone to it, was meant to negate the rest of what I said. Having been an avowed atheist, in my youth, I too know all the tricks. People who have faith are ignorant right? They aren't as smooth, cool, hip,and most of all...liberal. This is exactly what Ann so perfectly describes in her book.

The fact that the "internet," is full of people like me, is know different than your first assessment about my leading sentence. That is, however, exactly the same response I had upon finding your site, but I went passed my feelings and read on.

Shalom,
Ed Jacobs

You ended by saying "peace", so I'll reply.

Do my ideas threaten freedom? Not in my opinion. Even if they did, the 2nd amendment is not supposed to be a threat to any ideas. The 2nd was designed to create militias to protect against tyranny, not as a threat to ideas. The 1st amendment protects free speech and ideas. To threaten people because you don't like their ideas is neither good nor protected by the Constitution.

The left did not support socialism and communism, some extreme leftists did, just as some extreme rightists supported fascism. To equate liberalism with communism is about as stupid as equating the Republican Party with the Nazi Party, simply because the Republicans are on the right.

I do not say that your first sentence makes you irrelevant, simply that, if true, it makes debate with you impossible. If understanding Coulter requires the kind of faith one has in the Bible, then one either has it or one doesn't. Faith does not make one ignorant, but you cannot argue with a person's faith. My father-in-law's belief in Jesus does not make him ignorant, but it does mean that while we can discuss many things, we cannot constructively discuss his faith. He believes and that is that.

To claim that liberals cannot believe, cannot have faith, is horribly narrow-minded and foolish. I do not personally know any liberals who lack religious faith. I know liberal Christians, Buddhists, and Jews. This is one of the stupider things that Coulter argues.

Once the label "liberal" allows you to stop thinking about what a person might really believe, you have become blind to reality. People are not labels, no matter what Coulter may preach.

Shalom,
Carl

From: Kevin R.
To: editor@anticoulter.com
Subject: THANK YOU
Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2002 00:13:01 -0400

Whoever You May Be:

Thank You.

I had never heard of Ann Coulter (thank you Lord) until I saw her on the Daily Show, tonight, the 18th on Comedy Central. Afterwards, I ran to my computer to see if I could get her e-mail address just to let her how much I dislike the fact that she exists. I couldn't find a thing. Then I did a search on google for "I hate Ann Coulter" and I found your website. Your website demonstrates the sort of elevated critical thinking that my "knee-jerk liberal reaction" of the moment is capable of evolving into. Not that I am not intelligent or capable of critical thinking, I just had this tremendously negative gut reaction to everything SHE was saying. ANYWHO... You effectively proved to me with thoughtful and detailed critiques of Coulter's arguments that she is the conservative equivalent of the very "knee-jerk reactionary liberal" she attacks (as demonstrated so well in your "Evil or Stupid" page; brilliant!). She's no good.

I'm sorry (sorta sorry) that AntiC missed the Daily Show thing. The entire staff was up late playing poker. I heard from my spies that Stewart softballed her, which probably made her even more annoying. Too bad Stewart did so little, but I'm glad his show brought you to our little AnitC cult. Membership packet and saffron robes will be arriving in the mail shortly.

Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2002 11:31:40 -0700
Subject: AWESOME!!! Finally something that makes sense
From: Mark K. To: editor@anticoulter.com

You go point by point, quote per quote, dismantling Coulter's inane arguments perfectly.

Thanks for such a good site

You are welcome.

Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2002 20:51:09 -0400
Subject: Things we like about ...
From: Richard P.
To: editor@anticoulter.com

She brushes her teeth (and hair)

Two points: First, we can't confirm either of these allegations. (There was no comment from the Coulter organization.) Second, I prefer a more disheveled, windswept look. Since it's my likes page, my shallow and superficial opinion must stand.

©2002 Carl Skutsch. All rights reserved.
All opinions expressed herein are those of the author unless otherwise noted
(and it goes without saying that they make more sense than Coulter's opinions.)

graphics & design by pixelforge