Quotes Mailbag Links Email Contribute
About AntiCoulter
Why AntiCoulter?
Who Is AntiCoulter?


Writing On Coulter
Evil Or Just Stupid?
Couric, Coulter, Context
The Misunderstood Liberal
With Friends Like These...
Coulter Gets Fired
Donahue Interview
Gene Lyons Sums Her Up
Coulter fascist?
Old Larry King transcript


Lies, Damned Lies, And Coulter Columns
12/18: Democrats Lott
12/4: Wilding Part 3
11/27: Beauty Pageants
11/20: Gray lady
11/13: Democrat giving
11/6: Voter Intimidation
10/30: Muslim Makeover
10/23: Wilding Part 2
10/16: Wilding
10/09: Hot Air on Iraq
10/02: Crooked Dems
9/25: We hate them
9/18: Arabs in a bar
9/11: Adolf
9/04: Murder for Prophet
8/28: Battered Republicans
8/21: Gay Marines
8/14: Make Liberals...Rare
8/07: Nuclear Annihilation
7/31: Working families
7/24: About Money
7/17: Call her Mrs.
7/10: More slander

Humor & Miscellany
T-Shirt Concept, v 1.0
Coulter vs. Mr. T
How To Write A Column
Her Fans Speak Out…
Coulter Quotes
Things We Like About Ann

Contacts & Links
The Mailbag
Contact AntiC
Contribute To AntiC
Links We Like
Pro-Coulter Links

Our Mailbag


My first piece of hostile mail.
A Coulter Anecdote.
An open letter to Ann Coulter from a reader

The rest of the mail (selected letters), in reverse chronological order (in other words: the new stuff comes first).


From: Smslking@aol.com
Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2002 15:38:46 EST
Subject: Liberals
To: carl@anticoulter.com


In a true sense of the word "facist" most liberals fit it to a "T".

In liberal logic what is good is bad and what is bad is good. Self reliance, hard work, fairness, wholesomeness, family responsibility, honor, duty, patroitism all are bad in liberal logic. Perversion, godlessness, averice, greed, jealously, hateful speach, lying, demagogary, are all facist tools and the stuff of everyday liberals.

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.


From: Ross
To: editor@anticoulter.com
Subject: Her comments on innocence
Date: Mon, 9 Dec 2002 11:33:27 -0600


Dear Mr. Skutsch:

I work in a small but prominent New Orleans criminal defense firm. Just last week, in conjunction with the Innocence Project, we obtained DNA proof that our client had spent 17 years in Angola penitentiary for a rape he did not commit. He is now free and has the honor of being the 117th person exonerated by DNA evidence in the United States.

Needless to say, we didn't exactly get the warm fuzzies by Coulter's jaw-dropping assertions (12/4/02 column) that pointing out evidence of innocence is somehow a liberal ploy to set guilty rapists and murderers free, or that juries never makeÊmistakes when deliveringÊguilty verdicts. One assumes she feels differently about the O.J. Simpson jury/savages.

I invite Ms. Coulter to visit any courtroom in Louisiana and then defy her to say that our judicial system is "a one-way, pro-defendant ratchet." She would be jeered out of court by the judge, DA, defense counsel and jury. This woman is insane.

Sincerely,
Ross

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".


Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2002 21:55:09 -0500
From: Michael N.
To: editor@anticoulter.com
Subject: NYT for 12/18


I look forward to your reporting on Ms. Coulter's statement in the NYT that, "I don't remember liberals being this indignant about the 9/11 terrorist attacks." http://www.nytimes.com/2002/12/18/politics/18CONS.html
Even for a known nutcase, this is a way over the top method of defending Sen. Lott.

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.


From: LeShan J.
To: editor@anticoulter.com
Subject: Love your site
Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2002 22:45:04 +0000


I love your site, reminds me of some of the old anti-Limbaugh sites I used to search out. On Dec 13 I saw Anne C on the fox news channel (Hannety and Colmes)alongside Al Sharpton discussing Trent Lotts latest brain dropping and she repeated an oft heard idea of the right, that the democrats were the ones who were pro-segregation and all. What this historically challenged lady forgot to mention was that these "Dixie-crats" were people like old Strom and that they all became Republicans by the end of the 60's.
LeShan J.

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.


From: JCASTEEL1@aol.com
Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2002 13:32:16 EST
Subject: Your a genius
To: editor@anticoulter.com


Hey, I have to admit, YOU are not an idiot! YOU are a genius! How anyone can be successful with a website devoted totally to admonishing someone as insignificant as Ann Coulter (even though I agree with much of what she says) is beyond me. Good work! Hope it keeps putting bread on the table. John Casteel, Traverse City, Michigan

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.


Subject: Thank you for your web site.
Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2002 08:49:01 -0600
From: Michael G.
To: carl@anticoulter.com

Every time I see her on Fox or any other network, I want to throw a very heavy Coke bottle through my TV set.
I appreciate your site.

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!


Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2002 22:12:32 -0800 (PST)
From: Kris F.
Subject: anticoulter
To: editor@anticoulter.com


I've checked out your site several times now and I must tell you I enjoy it. I know you've wanted to keep your focus on Coulter, but one thing bothers me: isn't Coulter a symptom of a larger problem? The somewhat resurgent popularity of Rush Limbaugh and conservative talk radio. Michael Savage, who seems like the ideal candidate forÊa Coulter groom. "Fair and balanced" Fox news with conservative sycophants Britt Hume, Tony Snow and bullies Bill O'Reily and Sean Hannity. It seems to me, that conservative pundits are using up all that pent-up cold war hostility meant to be directed towards the Soviets against mainstream liberals. Losing their "enemy" with the collapse of the USSR, they've seem to have found new ones, first and foremost in the guise of Bill and Hillary Clinton, and then in all liberals, and finally, in moderates who don't toe the conservative line.
It's rather difficult to watch it all unfold and feel powerless to stop it. It's made even more difficult knowing that people like Coulter, Savage, Limbaugh, Fox News, etc. wouldn't be in business making a bundle in the politics/news/entertainment game if at least a large minority of Americans weren't A) gullible enough to believe what are obviously lies by rank hypocrites B) ignorant enough not to know anything about this county's history or about the political process in general which gives demagoguesÊthe easy advantage and C)racist-sexist-homophobic enough to agree with much of Êthe hatred being spewed at them. What's most amazing, is that these people are given "legitimacy" by being on tv constantly. I've seen your comment son Chomsky and I agree with them, but I must say, if the media has such a liberal bias, why is Coulter & Co. allowed on the air so regularly? Where's Chomsky and Zinn? And finally, am I the only one to see theÊparallels between the words of Coulter & Co. and the word s of the Nazis? Am I the only one who sits uneasily waiting for them to openly call for the arrest, incarceration or murder of liberals? We're called perverts, communists, traitors, murderers (they clearly insinuated and continue to insinuate that the Clintons are actually murderers). I apologize for the length, I'd just like to reiterate that I do enjoy the website and I appreciate this opportunity to vent, even if it does go unanswered.

Regards,
Kris F.

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.


Subject: 12/4 Essay
Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2002 14:45:37 -0500
Stu B. To: editor@anticoulter.com


You asked for a defense of this essay, so here you go. With all due respect to your remarks, I think you are missing the larger point that Ann is making, regardless of how you think she goes about making it. That is, the NYT isÊadopting and making their case for the defendants, interpreting the evidence as they see fit, unopposed, and using their pulpit toÊadvertise their view of the case. They can leave out all the opposing evidence that they want, assuming they are aware of all the evidence, and make things look pretty much as they want to their readers. That's their opinion, and that's free speech, but how can you disrespect the opinion of 2 juries, but hold in highest regard the opinion of journalists in this case? Will you do that just because the journalistsÊare liberals? Or have you deluded yourself into thinking that you know more about the case than the juries did?

Stu in Baltimore

PS I agree the statement that "The odds of an innocent man being found guilty by a unanimous jury are basically nil" is a bad one. The chances are small, but statistically it's going to happen. The chances are higher that a guilty man will walk, but that's no consolation to the innocent man doing time.

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.


From: tennesissy@earthlink.net
Date: Sat, 14 Dec 2002 08:04:14 -0800
To: editor@anticoulter.com
Subject: The Cowardly Lion


While I was reading Ann Coulter's latest column (Media, Republicans and Augusta) - which by the way I found QUITE coherent - I looked for points in the piece which you might try to refute. (Normally I can see them) I finished reading the column without a clue about what you could attack in your counter-essay and came to anticoulter full of curiosity about how you would handle it. I never agree with your assessment but I also never figured you for a coward. Guess I was wrong. Enjoy your week off. -V. Vance

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.


From: "Connservativecontradiction"
To: editor@anticoulter.com
Subject: A Conservative That Disagrees Wtih Coulter
Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2002 22:44:30 -0800


Dear Mr. Skutsch,Ê

I find much of your rhetoric wrong (I am of the vast right wing conspiracy), however I do agree with you on one score . She is indeed a bigot. This was demonstrated in my mind without a shadow of a doubt considering her aritcle "Battered Republican Syndrome". I suspect my cause to call her a bigot and yours are two very different things. See my comments below.

For whatever reason bigotry and racism have become in many peoples minds to mean the exact same thing. Whereas, all racism is bigoted all bigotry is by no means racist. A bigot is someone who is "a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices." In some cases having strong views that you stubbornly refuse to back down from can be a good thing. However, in most cases bigotry is a negative thing. Now that being said I would like to make this observation. I think Anne Coulter is an intellectual bigot when it comes to liberals. Now I like Anne Coulter as a writer and a columnist by and large. I agree with her 90% of the time and I find her entertaining and humorous with the use of her acerbic wit. However, I came across an article by her titled "Battered Republican Syndrome". She contends that liberals shouldn't be our friends because they are wrong and mean. She states in part:

"They are wrong about everything. Why would anyone want to be liked by these people?

...liberals never reciprocate the love conservatives keep sending their way. They don't like us. They don't even think we're human. Of this, I am eternally grateful"

Well I don't know the kind of social world that Ms. Coulter lives in but if I decided my friendships based upon my friends beliefs being aligned with mine or simply non-liberal my friends would be few and far between. Plus, friendships that have diverse points of view make far more interesting dialogue then say hearing your own voice being echoed back to you. Also, Ms. Coulter uses as her examples of liberal hostility the political world not every day life, and yet it seems as if she views all liberals in the light of the political world. I would also like to note that friendships based upon emotion is far better than ones based upon ideological agreement just as ideological agreement is far better based upon ideology than it is on emotion.

Anne Coulter ends her column with this:

This is as we have come to expect from a family of heroin addicts, statutory rapists, convicted and unconvicted female-killers, cheaters, bootleggers and dissolute drunks known as "Camelot." Why would anyone want such people as their "good friends"?

She seems to equate the actions of the Kennedy family to be indicative of the character of all liberals. On the face that seems rather preposterous and yet Anne Coulter also said this in the same article when she addresses the idea that liberals areÊgood people:

This cheery bonhomie is beginning to sound like the mantra about the "vast majority" of Muslims being peaceful and has produced the same good results.

And she gets upset when liberals compare Republicans to Nazis......

If Ms. Coulter made a differentiation between say the political world and the real world when she makes these comment they could be taken somewhat seriously albeit with a grain of salt . However, based upon what I know of her and what was said in this article I would say that Ms. Coulter views a liberalÊas evil not just as a person of ideology but as a human being ....someone that wouldn't be worth having as a friend. I definitely get the impression that Coulter's disdain and disgust for liberal politicians extends to all liberals for not just their beliefs but them as human beings.

And thats just plain bigoted.

Well argued. Even if you are a conservative!


Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2002 09:44:34 -0700
From: Russell Vernon -- rvernon@qwest.com
Organization: Qwest Communications International, Inc.
To: editor@anticoulter.com
Subject: Just wondering


After reading your website I am at an extreme loss to understand something: Are all liberals idiots, or is it that all idiots are liberals. Is it one or the other, or more likely I suspect, both?

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.



Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2002 16:50:49 -0800
From: "jon" - jdevega@nationalsafetyinc.com
To: carl@anticoulter.com
Subject: patience and tolerance


Am I wrong or are people on the left supposed to be patient and tolerant of other people? And you guys are always screaming about freedom of speech and so forth. Take a good long look at your own hypocricies first, before you go blasting other people.
One last thing which will help you understand the right. We run our ideologies based on logic and common sense, the left is based soley on feelings. We vote for things that make sense for all common interests. You vote on things that make you feel warm and fuzzy inside which never work for anyone, but just sounds good. Leave your emotions at home the next time you go to the ballot and try using you brain.
Thank you
White male christian (The real most discriminated person in this country)

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.


From: Nancy H.
To: editor@anticoulter.com
Subject: Ann Coulter is over board but--
Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2002 17:02:31 -0500


I sometimes cringe at what Ann Coulter says but--It always amazes me that liberals can't recognize a satire of their own vicious invective against conservatives. Like starve children, old people, and who knows: pets?; cut benefits when it is only the rate of growth being cut; push seniors down the stairs; Taliban; TheÊ'right wing' is the devil according to liberals, becauseÊliberalsÊsneer and have no respect for common, ordinary, religious Americans (and I'm a non-church-going conservative). The ideas coming out of academe are so far out that one can only shake one's head in disbelief and all free speech is censored if it is not PC, while the academics whine that they are being denied free speech if someone dares to write an e-mail criticizing them. Is that enough for you?

Nancy H.
State College, PA

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.


Subject: Love your site!
Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2002 09:39:33 -0500
From: Stu
To: editor@anticoulter.com


Well you didn't publish my last email, so I'll try again. I'm an Ann Coulter fan, read her books and love to see her on TV arguing with Liberals. I like your site because you are gutsy, stand up for what you believe, not afraid to say it without being PC, just like Ann. You also keep reminding people to abandon personal attacks, and stick to debating issues, which so many people on both sides often forget. Last but not least, you have a good sense of humor, and seem to keep things in perspective, even when people get a bit over passionate.

And, you have given me a great idea, I want to start an Anti-AlGore site. There I can track and report onÊthe ever-changing AlGore, and his frequent morphing as to his political approach. Best of all, I love to hear himÊlaying blameÊon the media conspiracies, Christians, Rush, special interest groups (Hey Al, what are unions?), etc. HeÊgenerates aÊwealth of anti-Algore material. Do you think I could combine Algore and Daschel on the same site? Probably not, just too much material to manage, unless I quit my day job. But I'd also like to do an Anti-Hillary site....alas, too many choices.

Keep up the good work, I visit your site often, know your enemy!

Stu in Baltimore

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).


Date: Tue, 3 Dec 2002 1
From: tt smith -- sharkman62000@yahoo.com
Subject: Ann Coulter To: editor@anticoulter.com


Ann Coulter is one of the finest legal minds and authors in America today.

Evidently, your organization's MO is to prove Miss Coulter correct. You and your leftist/socialists present no solutions (except more government and more taxes) and only seek to drown-out common sense and reason.

It is truly sad that the left has not learned from the Soviet's failure. The Soviets always referred to the American and British Left as their "Useful Fools!" When will you wake-up and realize that you are simply WRONG!

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?



Date: Tue, 03 Dec 2002
Subject: Ann Coulter vs. Pat Buchanan
From: Craig F.
To: editor@anticoulter.com


I normally wouldn't want to encourage anyone to read Pat Buchanan, but I think he inadvertently does a pretty good job of comparing her to Osama bin Laden, particularly in the last paragraph. His article can be found here: http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=29838.

Craig

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.



From: "Susan T.
To: editor@anticoulter.com
Subject: where are the good arguments?
Date: Mon, 02 Dec 2002 17:38:52 -0600


I consider myself politically "independent" and am reading as much about politics as I can. I just read SLANDER over the weekend and found it interesting to say the least. Since reading it, I have been searching the internet trying to find some really good arguments against the book and can't really find too many.

The articles you have on your site do a good job of taking issue with the accuracy of some of the footnotes as well as Ann's incessant name-calling and over-generalizations of liberals. Good start, but where are the arguments against her main points?

For example, one of Ann's points in the book is that the media has classified Reagan, Quayle, and G.W. as dumb, routinely reporting on their verbal gaffes, but ignoring those of democrats (Ann provides several examples of Democratic goof-ups never reported in the media). Furhermore, during the 2000 campaign, we all heard about Bush's C average at Yale, but heard nothing about Gore's academic record, which is not too impressive according to the book. Why the different treatment of these two presidential candidates?

The chapter I found most intriguing was the one about the "apocryphal religous right." Ann does pose a good question, who exactly are the religious right? How are they defined? And why is the term used so much if no one has defined them?

These are only two particular points out of many, but it would be nice to see someone in the media disagree with her overall arguments instead of resorting to simply calling her names and saying what a nut she is. What do you think?

Susan

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."



To: editor@anticoulter.com
Subject: Chomsky / Coulter?


Anti-Coulter,

I enjoyed your site despite the fact that reading through Coulter's insanity and playing "find the fallacy" cost me a good hour and a half of my morning (time that I needed to devote to writing that end of the semester paper). I just had a quick question for you. In your essay "The Misunderstood Liberal" you wrote:

"Sure, there are leftists who play the same sort of name-calling game (think Noam Chomsky) but they don't represent liberals."

What did you read that gave you this impression of Chomsky?

I haven't read his "corpus," so he could have said something unbecoming somewhere, and I haven't studied his work systematically, though the few footnotes that I have chased down have been accurate and used appropriately. He seems to me to have a good grip on the difference between productive discussion and Coulter-like inanity; his writing is pretty civil. I cannot remember a single instance when he gave an indulgent and superficial moral gloss to his perspective, or used disparaging nicknames for anyone. I, myself, have not picked up on any paranoia-inspired conspiracy theorizing going on in his work. I just didn't understand why he was opposed to Coulter as the left-wing "name-calling" commentator.

yours,
George M.

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.




From: "JEFFREY GILL" - gillmeister24@msn.com
To: editor@anticoulter.com
Subject: Web Site
Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2002


To Whoever,

Just a note to let you know what an absolute waste of time it is. Nothing new or special here, just a bunch of lies. I wish I could get those 5 minutes back

Jeff G. Princeton, IN

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!!!)


From: "JAJ
To: editor@anticoulter.com
Subject: other right-wing bimbos
Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2002


Demoncrat here! Several people have e-mailed you about expanding the focus of your website. Have you ever thought about discussing other right-wing bimbos like Kelly Ann Fitzpatrick and Debbie Schlussel? Also, have you read David Brock's book Blinded by the Right? It has some interesting information about Coulter. . .

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.


Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2002 19:00:15 -0800 (PST)
From: David M.
Subject: anticoulter
To: ann@anncoulter.org


Carl dude,

Why are you wasting your time with this page. Ann Coulter is like every other pundit, left or right,Êwho is persistently recycled through all the talking head shows on cable. She has found a way to make a lot of moneyÊspewing hard boiledÊinvectives whether she believesÊthem or not. HerÊtotally bitchin' wannaÊbe "valley girl" style endears her to enough of the monumentallyÊinsignificant audience to have her invitation set on permanent repeat (whatever sells advertising, and in her case, sex doesn't hurt). Like all the others, she is a product of cable TV punditry, just another disservice provided to us by the TV industry. Let it go and get a life...

David M.

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?


Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2002 06:24:40 -0500
From: John
Organization: DOC/NOAA/NWS - National Weather Service
To: editor@anticoulter.com
Subject: Thanks


Hey,
Just wanted to say thanks for the Coulter articles. I went to Drudge as I often do for my links and found some of my favorites gone. Then I saw your site on anti coulter stuff. COOL! Just all that green print is distracting and causes me to do an awful lot of scrolling to read her columns. Can you leave it out of her future columns?
Anyway, thanks for making her stuff available, I love reading her!
J

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.)


Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2002
From: David C.
Subject: why AC hates liberals
To: editor@anticoulter.com


Allow me to enlighten you as to why AC hates liberals. I, myself, don't necessarily hate liberals,
Necessarily? Do you or don't you?
but as a conservative college student that has gotten into several arguments with starry eyed, well-mening liberals, I know how frustrating it can often be. She is right that liberals offer derision and back-handed attacks in place of logic and practicality.
Let's grab a few samples of this week's intelligent conservative commentary:
-- Tony Hernandez" ( tonyjh@ga.prestige.net ) I agree with your point about your 3 year old. If you're raising him/her to believe in the same bullshit you do, then yes, he/she will be a menace to society.
-- Tom Dale ( tom_dale22@hotmail.com ) Ann is great. You're an idiot, and you're also ugly.
-- Gene (UnklGene@aol.com ) I just read through your AntiCoulter site. Who are you kidding? You really love Ann, don't you? I do, too. Gene
-- From: ( VANBOCK@aol.com ) She is not only a babe, she is a great intellect and doesn't take any shit from limp-wristed, anti-American "liberals." You lib bed-wetters are on the wrong side of History. So have your sophomoric fun. Go Annie !!!!
My point being, there seem to be quite a few conservatives interested in nothing more than ad hominem attacks devoid of substance and logic.

For example, conservatives advocate supply-side, across the board tax cuts with the idea of increasing incentive to work and invest. The least liberals could do is come back with a quasi-Keynesian argument about increasing agregate demand by handing out money to people who don't have much. But they very rarely do.
Well, quite a few of them do, and many don't. If you were trying to argue that most people, conservative and liberal, don't think much before spouting, I'd agree with you.
They usually just call conservatives money-grubbing grinches who want to steal from the poor and give to the rich.
I've never heard or uttered that phrase, but maybe I've missed the latest liberal memo. I've had a cold.
When conservatives talk about privatizing part of social security in order to prevent it from going bankru pt, instead of offering an alternative way to reform the doomed pension scheme Democrats usually see that as a good opportunity to point out that conservatives hate old people.
Example? Give me a Daschle or Gore quote saying conservatives hate old people. On the flip side, I could give you a zillion Coulter quotes saying liberals are traitors.
When conservative law makers put a provision in the homeland security bill that just passed this week, that put caps on potential law suits against pharmaceutical companies so that it would actually be worth their (the pharmaceutical companies') while to offer a potentially life-saving small pox vaccine to millions of Americans, liberals pointed to this as proof that conservatives are beholden to their corporate over-lords.
A provision which was, quite rightly, condemned by arch-conservative Phyllis Schlafly. Here is Schlafly on that part of the homeland security bill: "It contains non-germane sections, such as protecting the drug companies from lawsuits by autistic children based on mercury-containing vaccines". Go Phyllis!
They didn't offer an alternative way to make the small pox vaccine available on a grand scale. I could go on and on with documented examples of liberals dismissing logical conservative arguments as inherently corrupt without offering good counter-arguments or alternative ways to solve complex problems.
You haven't documented anything. I'll grant that you could find examples of liberal simplicity, but you can find examples of conservative simplicity just as easily. The point I make on this site is not that conservatives are bad and liberals good (even though I am a liberal) but that Coulter is bad because she distorts the truth and fosters a climate of bitter partisanship. (And yes, I think liberals who do the same sort of thing deserve their own "anti" sites.)
I think what irks AC and a lot of us is that contemporary liberalism (as opposed to classical liberalism) is based on good intentions and over-simplified notions of social justice and how the world works, and thus contemporary liberalism needs no logical justification. It leaves its proponents free to attack their ideological opponents on moral grounds, rather than logical grounds, without leaving themselves open to moral counter-attacks.
And I could make over-simplistic generalizations about modern conservatism, but what purpose would it serve? And how would the moral arguments of liberals not leave themselves open to moral counter-attacks? Your point escapes me. As your teachers should tell you, back your general criticisms with specific examples.
Conservatives alone are forced to confine their arguments to realistic notions of human nature based on logic and experience. But when conservatives make such arguments, liberals always deride them and take pot shots from the moral high ground until eventually everyone forgets what the basis of our argument was in the first place.
I don't condone everything that AC says. Some of it is a little over-zealous, but I can see where she is coming from. If you actually read her latest book Slander you will see arguments similar to the ones that I have made along with many documented examples that support her conclusions. Don't dismiss Coulter out of hand just because of her harsh rhetoric. There are a few grains of truth in her work that any fair-minded liberal should at least understand.
Grains of truth lost in a sea of lies. Calling liberals traitors, or haters of America, goes beyond harsh rhetoric.

David in Lexington
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 03:48:38 -0500
From: Jim
To: editor@anticoulter.com
Subject: Whatta laugh riot!!!


The webmaster of Coulter's site is named Tom Scerbo?!? Best Brains might have an actionable copyright issue with that.

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.)



From: Mark
Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2002
To: editor@anticoulter.com
Subject: Stalker


Hi, I just thought I'd mention that "stalker" is a term that Ann seems to apply to anybody who is attempting to debunk her (I suppose the "rationale" is that anybody that puts that much time into investigating her is stalking). She uses the term in the Scoobie Davis interview when it starts to dawn on her that the interaction is turning hostile.

By this logic, she's a Clinton stalker. Hell, by ANY logic she's a Clinton stalker...

If it means anything, I enjoy your site. I know it must seem like a waste of time some days, but there are people out there who take her seriously, witness her TV appearances. Keep yer chin up.

Mark B.

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


From: david s.
To: carl@anticoulter.com
Subject: stuff
Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2002 00:02:49 +0000


Sir,

Surfing a bit through some of the more liberal websites, passing time, mildly enjoying the gnashing, but really,.... a WHOLE site devoted to the lovely Miss Coulter? Lovely? Why always with the lovely? She's blonde and dresses in skimpy outfits, that does not make her lovely. Don't you have anything to do in your life? Uh, no. This is mildly embarrasing, and I feel for you, but please, get a girlfriend married, go bowling I'm lucky to break 100, have a beer Read the site, I drink Guinness, cold, watch some football I prefer curling, clean the house Have you been talking to the above-mentioned wife?, subscribe to National Review When it can be reliably ascertained that hell has reached temperatures below 0 Celsius, study latin actually one of my ambitions, probably never to be realized, paint the garage New Yorker: no car, no garage, do something, anything, and get on with yourself and your life! She's just a columnist with a forceful opinion! Nothing more! She's evil incarnate. Ok, maybe not that. But she is annoying, and a catalyst for ugliness in our political debates. In two words: She lies.

Best,
David S.
Taking David's criticism as kindly meant, I snipped his last name and email address.


From: Divyesh
To: editor@anticoulter.com
Subject: Fwd: Re: Ann Coulter's Otherside
Date: Sat, 16 Nov 2002 10:24:29 -0500


Mr editor,

I contacted Ann Coulter's websight to get Ms. Coulter to look at your site because you do give very good evidence of her mistake, then her webmaster below you can read his name said, "the site is run by a stalker". That is pretty laim from his side. Please look at the email below from Ann COulter's side-kick. Thanks.

Sincerely,
Divyesh Patel

From: "tom scerbo" -- tom@anncoulter.org
To: Divyesh
Subject: Re: Ann Coulter's Otherside
Date: Sat, 16 Nov 2002

its a terrible site run by a stalker!

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.



From: "Jim" - j-d-dalton@juno.com
Date: Sun, 10 Nov 2002 03:55:35 GMT
To: carl@anticoulter.com


Ann is great. You're an idiot.

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.)


Date: Wed, 6 Nov
From: Reid
Subject: does she really merit a watchdog?
To: editor@anticoulter.com


Dear Sir,

I'm an English teacher living in S. Korea, and I just stumbled across your website, www.anticoulter.com. To confess my biases: I admit to a right-wing phase a few years ago, and because I have a journalism degree from a Canadian university, I believe that a liberal bias exists in the mainstream media and in the institutions that prepare journalists forÊit (just as surely as a right-wing bias permeates the home page of, say, www.newsmaxx.com.) So I am more sympathetic to right-wing sympathies than most liberals.

My subject line says it all--is Ann Coulter, an apparently "best-selling author", really worth a website devoted to dissection of her ideas and hers alone? Is she such a demon that she deserves to be taken apart on a website at your own expense? I'd figure that someone like Rush Limbaugh, although more civil, would deserve the darts of your criticism, given that some 20,000,000 Americans get their news from his radio show. I suspect most people will dismiss Coulter as being overtly sensationalist in order to promote book sales, and her quotes about Islam seem to me to be ample proof.

In a sentence--I suspect she's a tempest in a teapot. Don't you want to broaden the field of your website, make it all-encompassing like www.prorev.com?

Yours cordially,
Reid B.

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.)



From: "Larry Jones" - brmc190@hotmail.com
To: editor@anticoulter.com
Subject: Thankfullness
Date: Tue, 5 Nov 2002


I thank GOD each and every day that i don't live in the world you livein. Where good is bad right is wrong and mean ignorant people tell you what to think. I just wished there was a unpopulated place where all you socialist liberal democrats could go and try your great experiment. Oh but wait somebody already did USSR and they failed in less 80 years oh well it was thought. Maybe you could come up with some solutions for the problems your liberal socialism has caused in this once great country. Or is that asking to much for you to help clean the mess you've made. Maybe one you will pull your head out and look around or maybe not as far up as your head is it would take team of mules to pull it out. Conservative till the end

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.




From: Leonard M.
To: editor@anticoulter.com
Subject: Ann Coulter
Date: Tue, 5 Nov 2002


Ann Coulter is GOD. I am convinced. I will worship and obey for all the days of my life.

Bow down and kiss her feet before she destroys you all.

Resistance is futile.

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

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


From: Craig
Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2002
Subject: Perceptive
To: carl@anticoulter.com


how tickled I am that I correctly predicted--SIX days ago--that Coulter's latest essay would tackle the Washington sniper Thats what you wrote. Do you want a medal? A very large news item, that has been in the papers for a while that finally comes to a head. And you PREDICT that Ann Coulter will write about it. Got any preditctions for the lottery??

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.)


From: Chris M.
To: editor@anticoulter.com
Subject: AC? Christian?
Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2002


To the Editor,
Hello, I just stumbled across your website recently. While I would disagree with some or most of the few remarks and commentaries I read on your site, I would like to say that I am impressed with your professionalism on political matters. It seems you DO have a desire for truth and to counter misrepresentations and lies. For the record: most rants this person spews out of a hateful heart I disagree with. Furthermore, for political purposes you could classify me as a conservative Republican.
Anyway, I wanted to write to you about one issue in particular. I'm not sure what AC has "claimed" about her religious views but Christian she ain't. "Christian" meaning a follower of Christ. Jesus Christ. The Christ of the Bible. Christ being the Lord of her life, the God she serves, the One she puts her faith and hope in. Now only God knows who His children are but His children can discern who are Christ's and who are not by their fruit. Without going into a sermon, I just wanted to appeal to your sense of fairness and justice by requesting that she not be labeled or identified with Christians and Jesus Christ of the Bible.

You were correct in writing "I'm no biblical expert, but this sure makes sense to me. A lot more sense than Coulter (who strikes me as one of those Christians who hasn't really bothered to read what Christ actually said)."

So please, you might as well call her a Martian because she referred to outer space. A Christian Ann Coulter IS NOT!

Thank you for your time.

May God Bless you,
Chris M.

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...

Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2002 21:14:40 -0500
To: editor@anticoulter.com
Subject: what's this? a closet conservative?


Yes, that's right; lurking in your class all this while was a conservative.(Egad, the cat's out of the bag...I hope this doesn't affect my grade). Sorry I didn't speak up sooner.

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

In any event, this email is not directed towards you--it is directed toward the other conservatives who write in here and give harmless little girls like me a bad name.

I am ashamed to be associated with you people in ANY fashion, be it politically or otherwise. Why? Because you're making fools of yourselves! You rush to Ann Coulter's aid (only God knows why...the woman is a loon) in such a senseless frenzy, abandoning all reason and getting caught up in passion. Well, passion is a wonderful thing, but not at the cost of decency or respect towards a fellow human being. And some of the things that certain correspondents have said have been truly awful. (ex. death threats, bringing a helpless child into the matter).

What really gets me, though, are the generalizations some of you have made. Even one of the more recent emails states that "all conservatives loath liberals...We want liberals to disappear from the universe forever." Oh, really?

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

Listen, if all conservatives loathed liberals, then I would hate a good 80% of my fellow students at school. (In case you're scratching your head on that one, that isn't the case.)

You may wonder why conservatives often get branded as bigots or racists, but with words such as those, I see it all too clearly. And those of you who write in with your close-minded labels and baseless arguments are perpetuating the stereotype.

Thanks.

Obviously you are free to write in and express your opinions, but either do so intelligently or kindly leave the rest of us out of it.

Sincerely, C.

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.


From: "Irby, DeAnn DA SHLOIL-SPS" - Deann.Irby@shell.com
To: "'editor@anticoulter.com'"
Subject: Confused
Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2002


For someone who pounces on Coulter over and over again about misleading people and lying, you seem to not have a problem doing it yourself with the "Coulter gets fired" headline. It is quite clear from the letter from Natl. Review's Jonah that she ended that relationship herself. Maybe you need to clean up your own act??

I'm glad to see she has pissed you off so completely that you would devote such time to a website. I tend to agree with most of what she says, and I find her refreshing in an oh-so-PC demented world. If she's pissing off people like you, maybe she is ruining a few other liberals' days as well. Bravo, Ann!!

One more note... I read your transcript of Ann's interview with Donahue. I tried to ignore the misspellings and stay with in intent. I just don't see how he chewed her up, as you suggest that he did. I felt she held her own admirably, and since she was probably brought on the show in the guise of promoting her book, she should not be attacked for trying to stay on subject. I remain proud of her.

You just keep on posting your little opinions on your site, and I'll continue to be entertained by your aggravation.

DeAnn Irby

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.


Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2002 03:46:52 -0500
From: Ben C.
To: editor@anticoulter.com
Subject: Too easy?


Sir,
I applaud your work on this site. You take apart Coulter very successfully, systematically, and completely, and I'm more than impressed at your ability to keep doing so for so long without going crazy. No one should have to read that much Ann Coulter. My concern with AntiCoulter, then, has nothing to do with the arguments you make, almost all of which I agree with. My concern is that it is all too easy.
This is not meant as a knock at the work you do. No doubt, you are more thorough, more complete, etc. than most Coulter critics. But by and large, Coulter is sufficiently absurd that any thinking person can see the gaping holes in her arguments.
This is not to say that there is no benefit in your kind of systematic approach. It is helpful, up to a point, to see all of her inaccuracies and logical fallacies laid bare. But only up to a point. Coulter is so repetitive, that your criticisms of her become so as well, and little more is accomplished by continuing to pick her apart.
This might not be the case if Coulter were taken seriously by any significant portion of the population, but that this point she is not. Perhaps Coulter was once accepted as a voice of the conservative movement, but the vast majority of conservatives now consider her an amusement at best, and a liability at worst. No intellectually honest conservative, and yes, they exist, listens to Coulter. There are people who do, but they are not reading this site, and if they were, they would not listen to logical argument.
So ultimately, your audience is made up of people who hate Coulter, who are already converted, and people who hate you, who will never be. If you turned your significant analytical skills on a more legitimate conservative voice, such as William Safire or George Will, you might spark real debate. You might lose some of those arguments, because they are more nuanced, but you would help your readers get to the truth far more than you do now. Attacking the most absurd voice of a movement is easy; the true test comes in taking on the best your opposition has to offer. Your analysis here suggests you could do so successfully. I hope you choose to try.


Ben C

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.


Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2002
From: Amanda
To: editor@anticoulter.com
Subject: Wonderful!


I'm a student at Smith College and tonight the (very small, I would think) Smith Republican group paid Ann Coulter $1000 to speak for an hour. Now, Smith is one of those liberal-elitist-ivy-league-type colleges that she hates so much (although she went to Cornell...). Plenty of people boycotted and didn't show up. Others said they would throw fruit at her (not the most mature idea I know, but luckily, it didn't happen). Still others, like myself, went to hear what she had to say though we knew we wouldn't agree. I'm not sure what I expected, but I'm pretty sure her speech, saying that Liberalism and Terrorism were the same disease, went far beyond my expectations (I hadn't heard of her until yesterday). While throwing slanderous comments at the Liberals who made up the majority of the audience and had the open-mindedness to attend, she had the gall to make an even more ridiculous comment about Muslims (something about how they're all terrorists and half of them are named Muhammad). When a large portion of the audience left in disgust she called after them saying that they had 'come to the wrong lecture, the one on anal sex was down the street'. This was one of a slew of rude comments, followed by a question and answer period that she wouldn't finish because she didn't 'have all night'. I suppose the fact that the Smith students had intelligent questions to ask on actual political issues scared her away. Besides, she had to brush her blond hair, which was getting knotted from her running her fingers through it in nervous response to the questions she couldn't answer.

Thanks so much for the great site...gave me almost as many laughs as the lecture.

Amanda

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.]


From: HOlszowy@aol.com
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2002 20:36:48 EDT
Subject: Question
To: editor@anticoulter.com


Why do conservatives write best sellers and conservative talk show hosts top the ratings? Why do liberals fail at both? Could it be that few intelligent people care about the liberal message? If you could sell your ideas, I'm sure you would, so apparently no one cares about what you have to say - well maybe a handful of like-minded people.

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


From: "Tom Dale" - tom_dale22@hotmail.com
To: carl@anticoulter.com
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2002 16:55:40 +0000


I found your anitcoulter site will surfing around and I saw you're picture which is on the site. You look retarded, ugly and pretty stupid. :) That felt good.

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


From: Johan G.
To: editor@anticoulter.com
Subject: Feedback.
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2002 14:20:20 +0000

Hi there Mr Editor.

I have read your site with interest for a few months now and I do like what you are doing. I first became aware of A.C after her infamous kill-leaders, convert-to-christianity quote a few months ago and I didn't take her seriously. I mean, how could anyone? To my horror, apparently quite a few can.

I write to you as a Swede that has lived in the US for a long period of time and I have had the opportunity to compare the two countries different political systems. I would be considered a rightwing person in Sweden but a Naderite in the states. Something I think gets lost in the debate between left and right in the states is that a republican is, speaking globally, far, far right of the center. There is no party anywhere in the world that is so very blue (as opposed to red) as the republican party.

So when a republican shout and scream that all liberals are stupid and that a liberal society cannot possibly work, simply remind him that most other countries with functioning democracies are run by people who by american standards are very liberal. American republicans are a tiny, tiny minority on the global scene.

Thank you and good luck with your site even though I don't think your "opponent" will be in the media much longer. She is too uninteresting and boring to have the lasting appeal of, say, Rush Limbaugh.

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.)



From: Jim Sorensen (JSorensen@delphidisplaysystems.com)
To: "'editor@anticoulter.com'"
Subject: Penn state newspaper cancels Anne Coulter.
Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2002


Just happened to see your site and noticed the Headline that Anne Coulter had been fired by the Penn State Newspaper. I was curious so I went to the site of the Newspaper. Since it sounded like a College paper I checked it out and found that the total readership is approximately 25,000+, Not exactly a significant event. 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 you have done here is prove the distortion and dishonesty of the liberal left. Your friends fired Anne Coulter and you print a headline as if it is comparable to being "fired" by the NEW york Times.
Keep up the bad work.

Jim Sorensen

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?



From: DCSII
Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2002 11:36:22 EDT
Subject: Truth Check
To: editor@anticoulter.com


I am not an Ann Coulter fan. I have read her book and have not found the section where you say she urges blind obedience to W.
Is there any such quote or section? Are you just saying this, or are you being truthful? If truthful, where did you find it?
DCS

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.

From: "Eddie Davis" (dan1davis@msn.com)
To: editor@anticoulter.com
Date: Sat, 19 Oct 2002 07:19:22 -0400


Dear Editor,

Your site is nicely done, even though I disagree with everything you say. I have a theory about the almost fanatical devotion AC commands among the ranks of the conservatives. I believe that Ann is the cutting edge of a new social attitude among conservative thinkers. For decades conservatives, despite claims from your side of the tent, have responded to liberal tantrums with patience and dignity. A conservative congressman says, "welfare needs to be reformed" and liberals call him racist. An african-american ascends to the rank of Secretary of State and he is an "Uncle Tom", and worse. News broadcasters openly skew programming to propagandize their pet, liberal issues but the most popular radio talk show host in the history of the medium is demonized, a Christian minister known the world over is cast as a cause in the dragging death of a man by a liberal television personality and not one liberal says, "whoa, that's too harsh, tone it down".

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).

Ann is right. There can be no lucid debate with a liberal. Liberals are incapable of participating in an arena of ideas. Move past creating bureaucracies to redistribute funds that do not belong to them, and they have nothing substantial to say. Five decades of liberal propaganda passing itself off as "news" has made you guys lazy. It should probably worry liberals that Ann represents a new, and utterly appropriate, view of the political landscape for conservatives. The time for conservatives to stop pretending to respect liberals as "the loyal opposition" and speak frankly about the inherent dishonesty of liberalism is upon you.

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.)

What I find so terribly amusing about Anti-Coulterites is that they cannot seem to disagree with her without proving her point. What passes for debate among liberals? Name calling, whining and, yes, lying. Take a look at congress. See the difficulty that the right and left have working out compromises? Now consider this; the average conservative Joe Blo believes his conservative reps are appeasers. Candy-assed, mealy mouthed appeasers. See where it all leads? To a future filled with political warfare, and it's about damned time. So Ann calls liberals names, says mean things about their personal character, implies that they are always on the wrong side of any issue. Yep, she does, and she means it. What's more, she can back it up with facts. Hell, we all can. After all, we're talking about people who coughed up the most corrupt, dishonest and undignified presidency in the nation's history, and defend it even to this day! What do they expect? Conservatives are constantly called racists, imperialists and worse without a shred of evidence and, like little bobblehead dogs, the liberal masses stupidly nod and move on to the next slander. But let AC, or someone like her point out that Teddy Kennedy is a drunken, carousing blowhard with Mary Jo Kopechne's blood on his hands or that Bill Clinton's only successes in his felonious presidency (excluding a few bj's) came by looting the Republican party platform or commit the heresy of saying that Jesse Jackson is a self-serving con man and the streets of New York and DC run knee deep in the foam pouring out the mouths of liberal media types.

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?

Get used to it. I suppose that in a moment of clarity a liberal might actually take a minute to ask themselves if there is anything to the claims AC makes, when she makes those sweeping statements like, "liberals are liars". I won't hold my breath. I just have to smile when I think of the future, however. All this excitement over one little girl from Connecticut. She's only the barometer of things to come and you treat her like she's the eye of the storm. You guys are so not ready for this. Pissed off people who actually read books, believe in something more important than themselves, are willing to make deadly war with their enemies and who, beginning now, openly characterize liberals as, at best deluded, and at worst traitors. That's what coming. Politics definitely NOT as usual. Learn to sleep with one eye open.

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

Liberals have only themselves to blame for this turn of events. Conservatives are supposed to sit quietly by while good, patriotic and in some cases, brilliant people are dragged through the mud by liberal hacks like Jennings, Couric, Gumbel and all the rest. (I'm thinking names like Reagen, Bork, Schlafly and Bennett, but the list could go on all day.) Conservatives understand and respect a debate with ideas, but character assassination, contrary to liberal beliefs, is not a debate about ideas. We, on the other hand, are supposed to pretend that Bill Clinton's lack of a moral compass is irrelevant. It's ok to lie under oath if you are a president, so long as it pertains to sex with someone who isn't your spouse. Somehow we are wrong to point this out. Christians in America do more charitable work than any group in the history of mankind, but we are ridiculed relentlessly in movies and on tv, but we should shut up about it, separation of church and state and all that. Point out that rap music is, generally speaking, nothing but vulgar sexism and racism masquerading as "art", and you are a racist trying to impose your values on someone else or tell fans of Madonna that her whole schtick is a glorification of the values of sluts and you're villified. We are un-American if we speak out against Clinton as a womanizing, lying fraud, which is obvious, but he is applauded when he suggests that Rush Limbaugh is responsible for the deaths that occurred in Oklahoma City. Are you able to see the hypocracy?

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).

In the real world one must do respectable things if they wish to be respected. Understand, all conservatives loathe liberals. American liberalism, which is the runt child of Bolshevik socialism, is loathsome. Always and forever. We can say it, mean it, and prove it. Defend that lying fraud who used to occupy the White House for saying that a radio talk show host is responsible for the deaths of babies and you're no better than he is. Liberals earned the scorn of Americans the way they never earned the respect of anyone. Ann Coulter is just the first voice to ring out in the new era of truth with the message that liberalism is a fraud and it's leaders are lying about everything. Politics have become war. Conservatives do not ask for the respect of liberals nor do we want liberals to cooperate in "bi-partisan" circle jerks the way politicians pretend. We want liberals to disappear from the universe forever. Like momma used to say, "if you can't say anything nice..." then go away.

All the Best to You,

Dan Davis

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.


From: "Gianattasio, Gary" (GGianattasio@maincompanies.com)
To: "'carl@anticoulter.com'"
Subject: The lovely Ann Coulter
Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2002 12:09:19 -0400


Dear Sir: It must be nice to have so little productive work to do that you can dedicate an entire web site to someone you find so obnoxious.

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.

After a brief glance at your site I doubt any "high paying job offers" will come your way any time soon. Most people, with the exception of performers, who are highly compensated are capable of more serious analysis than you. I do not always agree with Ms.Coulter, in fact I never always agree with anyone. I will say this in her defense however. She is an extremely intelligent, insightful, articulate and accomplished author, commentator and intellectual. She is given to hyperbole at times, but suspect that this is a rhetorical technique to force home her point. Many people do this. I think it is instructive that you rant on about her views and how abrasive you say she is and then call her a "Neanderthal". You make one of her points for her. People with your ideological mindset are given to adolescent name calling when confronted with views with which you disagree, or are not able to understand.

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.

I can not speak for Ms Coulter but I suspect her reference to invading the Islamic world and converting them to Christianity was a perhaps overly dramatic way of saying that our response to terrorism should be swift and severe.

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.

While I agree with her premise I feel she clearly overstated her case. I found your defense of Alec Baldwin's remarks about Henry Hyde to be a bit of a stretch. I could be wrong, but I don't think Baldwin is smart enough to make so oblique a biblical reference. Perhaps after he said it someone who was able to read, as I suspect Baldwin is not, told him this might be a defense for his stupid remarks.

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.

I am curious why someone as sensitive and dedicated to stamping out hateful remarks as yourself does not start a web site about Jesse Jackson or Louis Farakahn or Al Sharpton? Why this single minded focus on Ms Coulter? Could it be that you once asked her out and she told you to "get lost"? Or are you jealous that she is so successful as you obviously are not?

Gary Gianattasio

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.



From: "Jason L.
To: editor@anticoulter.com
Subject: You rock
Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2002


keep the faith, dude. Ann is the Rush Limbaugh of the 21st century. Thanks for exposing her for what she is.

Jason L.

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?)



From: "James T.
To: editor@anticoulter.com
Subject: AntiIntelligence
Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2002


I have no particular venom to spew about Ann because I don't think she has ever made any point politically that is anything other than vicious invective, which is unarguable. I am, however, amused by the fact that she seems capable only of the name-calling and personal denigration of anyone she thinks disagrees with her, while insisting that her methods are actually those of her opponents (and she based an entire book on it, didn't she?). She has never, to my knowledge, ever made a single coherent argument against any legitimate political position of someone she despises. Rather, she calls them names (and redundant ones, at that! Is she really so vacuous she cannot even come up with any new insulting terminology?), and attacks them personally, usually so over the top that she makes no sense, much less a point. Plus, the writers of the emails you receive defending her appears to be written by half-wits and morons, who are no more capable of coherent arguments than she is. I'm most assuredly not a liberal. I consider myself a radical, and if any of the legion of Coulter defenders wants to actually talk about issues, rather the spew obscenity and scatalogical references at you, I would truly enjoy reading your responses. You do your homework, and know about the difference between ideas and insults, which her defenders obviously do not. It is amusing that none of them ever argues about the political stands taken by legitimate conservatives, instead struggling with poorly writing various insults and expletives, badly styled and showing a complete lack of intellect. It is the sad task of fighting a battle of wits with the unarmed. Keep up the good work, and thank you for never sinking to the base levels of Ann and her sad, dull-witted Coulterites.

Jim T

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.

I am also puzzled about how anyone finds this anorexic, skeletal narcissist attractive!

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?



From: Craig
Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2002
Subject: interesting
To: carl@anticoulter.com


Hi, I'm a new reader of your site. I like it I think it is a beautiful example of the give adn take that our democracy is built on. But enough of that for a minute.
I am a conservative, however i am hardly a Coulter fan. The one thing is htough, in your critique of her book, Slander, and her interview with Katie Couric, I think the point that you miss is that Slander has for the first time actually catalogued all fo COulter's claims. The extensive footnoting and source listing is a relatively new concept for our political arena. Now if you think something is taken out of context you know where to go and look it up.
Now, with the book's existence, there is a claim to be made that Liberals (in gerneal) do spend there time calling conservatives liars and scary and what not. It is justified and backed up by a book of footnotes adn sources. Her claim is legitimized by this wealth of infomation. Its not simply a ranting and raving lunatic. Its a lunatic with EVIDENCE.

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.



From: Fabio J.
To: editor@anticoulter.com
Subject: The Good Fight
Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2002


As a regular and avid reader of Anti-Coulter, I am worried by the frequent remarks about the usefulness or continuity of the site. Working with basic facts, it is truth that Anti-Coulter does not have the reach or influence of the media vehicles that serve as Ms. Coulter's megaphone. Hate sells; if we had to choose one single lesson to absrob from the 20th century, that might very well be it.
That said, pages like Anti-Coulter, Counterpunch, and others are vital to keep the home fires burning. We neglect our dutyas citizens if we renounce what little voice we have when confronted with the myriad screams of the opposition. The humor and content of the page translates so well that eve here, in distant Brazil, people appreciate and comment on it. The creed of compassion, social justice, pacifism and progress hardly needs overpowering media enforcement to remain feasible; it requires only integrity, the will to debate and make amends, and keeping the door open for those who show interest in what we have to say, even if they held different or antipodal ideas before. Every reader who stumbles upon the page stands a chance of reading Coulter's next column with a more critical eye. Isn't that all we can really ask them to do?
We don't want Ms. Coulter censored, or jailed, or shot, or roughed up, or publicly tortured, as she insists we should do to several parties. At most, we can be accused of demanding coherence and open-mindedness in her discourse. Hardly marxist extremism. So do hang in there; the nasty side of human nature has field days whenever the good people stop doing their sahre or get tired of it.

I'd very much like to contribute to Anti-Coulter (even though monetary means, the most helpful, are scarce...I live in a Third World Country, after all.) If there's any information you need, or anything else I might do to help, do let me know. I append an essay that might cheer you up a bit.

Good luck, and lots of health,
Fabio J.

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.)



From: "Tom S.
To: carl@anticoulter.com
Subject: Bravo
Date: Mon, 14 Oct 2002


When do you get your weekly op-ed column syndicated? This is marvelous stuff. I consider myself very liberal, but I like to engage thoughtful conservatives. This Coulter person spews the kind of inanity that must be opposed. Thank you for fighting the bullshit!

Tom S.

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?



Date: Sat, 12 Oct 2002
From: Frank Merenda (fmerendasr@comcast.net)
Subject: The Anti-Coulter Web Site.
To: editor@anticoulter.com


As I perused this web site, it occurred to me that if Ms. Coulter was not effective, there would be no need for this web site. So I am left with the impression that in order to cope with her success, you have to attempt to miscaracterize everything she says with deceit and lies and exaggerations.

Frank Merenda
Phila.,Pa.

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.



From: "Louise S.Pepe" (cheslouise@earthlink.net)
To: editor@anticoulter.com
Subject: ANN COULTER IS THE GREATEST......YOU GUYS ARE MISINFORMED
Date: Sat, 12 Oct 2002


talk about evil....It doesn't get any worse than you....

Louise Pepe
Cape Coral, Fl.

Really? Cool.



From: Dick O.
To: "'editor@anticoulter.com'"
Subject: Ann & "what is a liberal?"
Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2002 11:52:01 -0700

Hi AntiCoulter,

Wow! Did we read the same book (Slander)? Of course I read it from the right while you read it from the left. I don't remember her calling the left evil. "Elitist", "under-educated", yes! Even sophomoric and immature. And nowhere does she refer to these as crimes. But I'm knit-picking.

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 don't think she needs to define liberalism. An open mind - one that doesn't get defensive - will realize she's talking about today's vocal, more radical element. Sorry if you feel lumped in there but it happens to us too. Come to think of it, maybe I'll stop complaining about being on the same team with David Duke. At least I won't be connected to Barbara Streisand, Cher, Julia Roberts, Tim Robbins etc, etc. Excuse me. These folks are all very talented and some of them are probably pretty smart. But, as far as national and world issues are concerned, they are all colossal dunderheads. But there's no law against that! (Am I sounding like Ann now?)

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 Liberalism and Conservatism are made up of a wide array of varying thought and interest. It is impossible to put a book of this nature out and not confuse large elements of society. Hell, Alan Dershwits (spelling?) and Pacifica Radio "hurt my feelings" all the time. No big deal. But, I guess my main purpose is to tell you that Slander is only going to have entertainment value for those conscientious conservatives who tried to have a serious discussion with "one of those" liberals. Like me. Having these experiences not only added meaning to the book. It also made it hugely funny. But then, you would have to of been there.

Your "side" has a hell of alot of "members" who, at least appear, to be very angry and irrational. Going face to face with one of these is both scary and a hoot. Sometimes I wonder if it could be an act. If so, it sure is a good one.

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