• 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
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).
Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2002 15:38:46 EST
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.
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 make╩mistakes when delivering╩guilty 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.
Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2002 21:55:09 -0500
From: Michael N.
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.
From: LeShan J.
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.
Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2002 13:32:16 EST
Subject: Your a genius
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
Subject: Thank you for your web site.
Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2002 08:49:01 -0600
From: Michael G. To: email@example.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.
Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2002 22:12:32 -0800 (PST)
From: Kris F.
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 for╩a 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 demagogues╩the easy advantage and C)racist-sexist-homophobic enough to agree with much of ╩the 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 the╩parallels 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.
Subject: 12/4 Essay
Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2002 14:45:37 -0500
Stu B. To: firstname.lastname@example.org
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 is╩adopting and making their case for the defendants, interpreting the evidence as they see fit, unopposed, and using their pulpit to╩advertise 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 journalists╩are 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.
Date: Sat, 14 Dec 2002 08:04:14 -0800
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
Subject: A Conservative That Disagrees Wtih Coulter
Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2002 22:44:30 -0800
Dear Mr. Skutsch,╩
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 are╩good 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 liberal╩as 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.
Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2002 09:44:34 -0700
From: Russell Vernon -- email@example.com
Organization: Qwest Communications International, Inc.
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?
Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2002 16:50:49 -0800
From: "jon" - firstname.lastname@example.org
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.
White male christian (The real most discriminated person in this country)
From: Nancy H.
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; The╩'right wing' is the devil according to liberals, because╩liberals╩sneer 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?
State College, PA
Subject: Love your site!
Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2002 09:39:33 -0500
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 on╩the ever-changing AlGore, and his frequent morphing as to his political approach. Best of all, I love to hear him╩laying blame╩on the media conspiracies, Christians, Rush, special interest groups (Hey Al, what are unions?), etc. He╩generates a╩wealth 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
Date: Tue, 3 Dec 2002 1
From: tt smith -- email@example.com
Subject: Ann Coulter To: firstname.lastname@example.org
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!
Date: Tue, 03 Dec 2002
Subject: Ann Coulter vs. Pat Buchanan
From: Craig F.
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.
From: "Susan T.
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?
Subject: Chomsky / 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.
From: "JEFFREY GILL" - email@example.com
Subject: Web Site
Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2002
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
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. . .
Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2002 19:00:15 -0800 (PST)
From: David M.
Why are you wasting your time with this page. Ann Coulter is like every other pundit, left or right,╩who is persistently recycled through all the talking head shows on cable. She has found a way to make a lot of money╩spewing hard boiled╩invectives whether she believes╩them or not. Her╩totally bitchin' wanna╩be "valley girl" style endears her to enough of the monumentally╩insignificant 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...
Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2002 06:24:40 -0500
Organization: DOC/NOAA/NWS - National Weather Service
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!
Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2002
From: David C.
Subject: why AC hates liberals
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" ( firstname.lastname@example.org ) 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 ( email@example.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
Subject: Whatta laugh riot!!!
The webmaster of Coulter's site is named Tom Scerbo?!? Best Brains might have an actionable copyright issue with that.
Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2002
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.
From: david s.
Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2002 00:02:49 +0000
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.
Taking David's criticism as kindly meant, I snipped his last name and email address.
Subject: Fwd: Re: Ann Coulter's Otherside
Date: Sat, 16 Nov 2002 10:24:29 -0500
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.
From: "tom scerbo" -- firstname.lastname@example.org
Subject: Re: Ann Coulter's Otherside
Date: Sat, 16 Nov 2002
its a terrible site run by a stalker!
From: "Jim" - email@example.com
Date: Sun, 10 Nov 2002 03:55:35 GMT
Ann is great. You're an idiot.
Date: Wed, 6 Nov
Subject: does she really merit a watchdog?
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 for╩it (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?
From: "Larry Jones" - firstname.lastname@example.org
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
From: Leonard M.
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.
Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2002
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??
From: Chris M.
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,
Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2002 21:14:40 -0500
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.
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?
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.
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.
From: "Irby, DeAnn DA SHLOIL-SPS" - Deann.Irby@shell.com
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.
Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2002 03:46:52 -0500
From: Ben C.
Subject: Too easy?
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.
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2002
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.
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2002 20:36:48 EDT
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.
From: "Tom Dale" - email@example.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.
From: Johan G.
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.
From: Jim Sorensen (JSorensen@delphidisplaysystems.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.
Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2002 11:36:22 EDT
Subject: Truth Check
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?
From: "Eddie Davis" (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Sat, 19 Oct 2002 07:19:22 -0400
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".
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.
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.
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.
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?
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,
From: "Gianattasio, Gary" (GGianattasio@maincompanies.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.
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 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.
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.
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?
From: "Jason L.
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.
From: "James T.
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.
I am also puzzled about how anyone finds this anorexic, skeletal narcissist attractive!
Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2002
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.
From: Fabio J.
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,
From: "Tom S.
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!
Date: Sat, 12 Oct 2002
From: Frank Merenda (email@example.com)
Subject: The Anti-Coulter Web Site.
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.
From: "Louise S.Pepe" (firstname.lastname@example.org)
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....
Cape Coral, Fl.
From: Dick O.
Subject: Ann & "what is a liberal?"
Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2002 11:52:01 -0700
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.
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?)
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.
Thanks for the opportunity,
From: Tamara C.
Subject: Alright, I am going to try to explain why "I" like Ann Coulter
Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2002 12:21:42 -0400
Hi there! As I said in the subject heading, I am goign to try to explain why I like Ann Coulter. It might not be easy, but I do like her!
I spent the first 14 years of my life not caring at all about politics. Then came a slow but radical revolution. All my friends were liberals. We were faced with problems in society and it was OBVIOUS to us that we had to spend money in order to fix the problem. As I aged and became well-travelled, I was introduced to many different thought processes and cultures, and it seemed obvious to me that╩a melding of cultures and equality of all people was the ultimate goal that we as humanity should achieve.
But, then a funny thing happened. I became a teacher. I quickly learned that there are many problems that spending programs and acceptance of varying opinions can not address. If I took my classrooms as a microcosm of the world, which was actually quite possible because I worked at an International High School with students from all over the world from vaious socio-economic backgrounds, I realized that discipline was one of the most important ways to achieve the ends that I wanted. But, not only discipline, there had to be certain standards that these kids had to live up to. I could not just accept everything that a student did and say, "Hey! He/she is from China. Their parents were jailed during the cultural revolution and escaped with nothing to Hong Kong years and years ago. Who am I to understand where they are coming from."╩
See, that is all wrong! What these kids had to learn was to fit into the society in which they were living in order to achieve all the successes that they could dream of. By segregating (and I use that word on purpose) these teens emotionally (by making distinctions or excuses for their behavior), you are actually putting them at a disadvantage in this world of ours.
And I believe that this is true in the adult world, also. I am now in the non-profit/charity world. I have really noticed that the best programs out there are run by addressing the problems (of homelessness, literacy, drug addiction, etc.) while maintaining standards of behaviour for all their "clients" to address.
Now, what riles me up when it comes to the social sector in our political arena is that, in general, it is "democratic" in nature to spend loads of money on programs without worrying about the results. The "republican" nature is to take away money unless there are proven results. I guess I call this "Tough Love."
So, as my political views have evolved, I have found that I like Coulter, Hannity, even Rush! I don't always agree with them 100%, and I find that they often (particularly Coulter) say things so provocatively just in order to get a reaction out of people. I laugh almost at every article that I read by her. I don't take her as gospel, and I am very aware of some of the tactic she uses when she omits pertinant information in order to prove her point.
But, I think that she serves an important purpose. She is provocative, and because of that, she keeps politicians on their feet. I think that anyone who dismisses her without reading into what her points are or researching on their own is doing a disservice to their own knowledge. She brings up valid points between the lines of her flinging dirt. I mean, there is a liberal slant in the news. Is that something that we, as a nation, need to address? Should we try for more objectivity? Or will the creation and success of Fox News counter that slant? Is there a correct answer.
I think that it is very important to realize that just because one is a conservative does not mean that they are insensitive or evangelical. In that way, I think Coulter offers a major disservice to the Republicans in our country. But, if you can take her with a grain of salt and laugh at her, she offers up a counter-point to the regular media that might offer kernels of truth to nibble on. And I think that we should all try to nibble a little bit on information that is contrary to our beliefs.
Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2002
From: Douglas C.
I read a little of your stuff on the Anti-Coulter website. You might be the first intelligent and intellectually honest liberal I have ever seen in print. I think what might help you understand why we all revere Ann so much (besides the good looks) is that we conservatives finally have a voice, and an unapologetic one. As a liberal (or, as you prefer, progressive), you must understand as someone trying to be a conservative today in America, we╩have no one to speak for us. You see the views that you believe espoused each day by the New York Times and all the major networks, taught to your children from kindergarten through graduate school, and much of it - most of it, I'd say - are untruths that are presented as facts. The brilliance of the left has been that it has silenced the right through shaming them with shouts of such things as "McCarthyism" and "homophobia" and "first amendment violators" when mostly what we want is the ability to discuss these ideas. Instead, we cannot have open discussion without being nuked. Sorry, almost all of the new ideas and intelligent discussion today comes from the right. Thank goodness for a few such as Ann, Rush Limbaugh and others who have thick enough skin to put up with the character assasination that they must live through in order to be able to have a logical discussion of issues.
Have to say, though, you have a clever site.
From: "cvsaxon" email@example.com
Subject: your website
Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2002
It is beyond belief that you would spend so much time on a website that follows her every word.
To hate her so much says more about you than her. ╩It must be an obsession.
I truly feel sorry for you.
Date: Fri, 04 Oct 2002
After I posted the above, d.stephano deigned to send the following note:
Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2002
From: Pam W.
Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2002
From: joan RE (REJOAND@msn.com)
From: Ross H.
From: Mark S.
Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2002 13:06:56 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Schmidt" (firstname.lastname@example.org)
From: "Schmidt" (email@example.com)
From: "Alison Marquardt" (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Mon, 16 Sep 2002 15:06:35
I just ran across your site in the Drudge Report and can't help but chuckle at your various articles re: Ann Coulter. As a reformed "liberal" and well over the age of 40 I can assure you that there are a good many others such as myself that were fed the liberal rhetoric as young women and we have seen first hand just what it breeds.
I always make a point of offering a sympathetic ear to my Jewish liberal woman friends [But not to your non-Jewish liberal woman friends? How cold hearted of you.] who have raised their children incorporating the liberal philosophies of "self-empowerment" and just letting the little "angels" unfold with no guidance, discipline, or authority (I know you hate that word) and evolve into the little monsters that society is full of today. [I'm raising a kid now, and we're perfectly happy to discipline the little devil at every opportunity; where do you get this idea that disliking Ann Coulter's ideas makes one a permissive parent? I don't get the connection.] It never fails that they begin to RECANT much of their childraising tactics that they learned from the liberals. It will do no good for Ann to print these issues since until you are ready to understand you will not grasp the real message. Actually, conservatives really don't hate liberals (as they hate us), but feel a sense of pity for them, much as an adult feels compassion for a misguided adolescent who thinks they "know it all" and are acting on a purely emotional level. Nothing will teach them but experience and growing up (and yes, having children). I was probably one of the most liberal people I know, a member of NOW, blah, blah, blah. I look back now (approaching 50) and wonder "what was I thinking?" [I suspect not much. You followed the herd then and you follow a different herd now.]
Yes, we understand your love for John Locke, what you fail to grasp however, is that not all people are "equal", that was obvious in Florida when those poor "disenfranchised" people couldn't figure out how to vote. I agree. [Hey, it's not just my like (not love) for Locke; our Founding Fathers used his ideas to put together our Declaration of Independence and Constitution. THEY, not me, were the original Locke Lovers!] If you are too stupid to figure out how to vote, then by God, I don't want your vote to influence public policy for me! In a simplistic way (so the liberals can understand), conservatives understood what the castle meant. [So America is a castle for the smart people? Gosh, democracy in action] And they understood that once you took the gate down and the masses entered, excrement would start to fill the halls, and that my friend is just what you have in the good old US today. Go in any public restaurant (and please don't pick the upscale part of town where good little liberals love to gather) and observe the attitudes of the employees. Hope you don't take up too much of their time asking for a glass of water! [I eat in cheap places and I've haven't noticed any excrement in the aisles (or especially rude service). I know you are too young to remember, but all forms of mass transit have digressed and moved gradually towards "just moving the sheeple around". Please tell me that things have gotten better since the 50's and I'll demand to know what dimension of time and space you are operating in. [Uh, let's see, since the 1950s we have achieved a much higher per capita income in inflation adjusted dollars, a lower poverty rate, people live longer, we get 200 channels on the boob tube, and we no longer live in a legally segregated soceity, just for starters.] I know that the current trends will probably continue (as long as we aren't bombed again, i.e. reality enters the picture) and until a miracle occurs and all of the educational indoctrination of our young people becomes openly laughable and there is some actual critical thought going on, we will continue to freefall into chaos. In the meantime, get a real job and leave Ann alone...she just calls em like she seems em......
Is it jealousy that motivates you? Or your lust for this attractive woman that you will never get to know? You come across as a scorned suitor determined to "get even".
From: "Ron Mc Intyre" (email@example.com)
You state in one of your articles that Rudy G. is for the death penalty, but you are not. That does not make him good and you evil. No, but it does make his position on the Death penalty right - and therefore, good, and yours - evil. God1s Word is Truth, John 17:17. It speaks plainly to the matter of he-who-sheds-man1s-blood [takes his life] by MAN shall his Blood be shed. You set yourself above God. That is evil. You speak of your father-in-law as a born-again, conservative Christian, and you are not. That doesn1t make him good, and you not. W R O N G! If he is as you declare born-Again, then, by the Grace of God, he is good. By virtue of the fact that you deny the Sovereign of the Universe His rightful due - your submission to His Will, you are evil. By virtue of this fact alone, you are incapable of making any accurate assessment of Ann Colter nor her assessment of reality in our times. You are - anti- Colter... anti-conservative, thus you must be a self proclaimed liberal. A true liberal is a magnanimous, generous, noble individual. You and your kind are Not liberal in the classic sense. ╩A liberal in politics is one that takes away what our Fore-fathers fought for and left us - our Constitution. Their world view to any honest Inquiry into history, shows them to be deeply influenced by the Word of God. To 'loosen the constraints' of the Constitution and its godly tenets is to ╬free1 people from the tyranny of Truth, but that is only what evil people want. ╩To conserve its principles is not evil - but good. Any rightly taught, honest patriot would want to see a continuance of what made America great. All that was due to our Godly heritage and especially as it is bound up in our Constitution. Rome fell because the ╬liberals1 catered to the whims of the capricious mob. So will we if the will of liberals - so called - prevails.
Great stuff...guard against the tendency to become the enemy...but really great stuff...
From: "Jeff Butler" (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Coulter is classy, smart, witty, straight, beautiful and God fearing.
You are probably an ugly, fat, ignorant, gay, humanist. Wake up and smell the coffee.
I just wanted to send you a note to tell you how much I enjoy your website. I stumbled across it a number of weeks ago, and have been a regular visitor ever since. It is great to hear reasoned responses to Ann's venomous outbursts. Keep up the good work.
Date: Mon, 9 Sep 2002 12:14:37
I would like your opinion as to why her views are so popular with a large segment of the American public. She has been selling a lot of books. I'm sure you would agree that if she had not met with popular success there would be no reason for your site. I suspect there must be some truth to her views, especially regarding The Times, although you can make a case that she does overdue it at times.
From: "CHARLES VANNICE" (email@example.com)
Why don't you concentrate on the things that Ann says about liberals in "Slander" instead of having such a disorganized site? She gives you an outline in the book.....why don't you just take them one at a time and go through them?
The trouble is that liberals cannot deal with truth, which is the same reason she, or Bernard Goldberg, never get invited to be interviewed on ABC, CBS, NBC, and CNN. But, fewer and fewer people are watching the dominant liberal media anyway, so it really doesn't matter anymore.
Good luck, and I hope this helps.
Bill in Kansas City
A poetry submission by Mary
From: "Jeffrey Erickson" (firstname.lastname@example.org)
After reading your hate speech at your AntiCoulter.com site, I'd like to hire you to neuter yourself. Unmistakably, your brand of racist, hate-filled, and extremist political propaganda will be a sick, perverted infestation on society wherever it shows up. You mention you have a 3 year old child. Truly, truly amazing. None of us thought you had it in you (nor did we have any reason to.) For the child's sake, I hope you never receive the chance to further pass on your DNA, your vicious, narrow-minded, and bizarre views on life, or your ramblings on society in the US. I sincerely hope, Carl, that your child grows up to be a responsible, decent, and well-grounded person. However, from what I've seen of half the parentage, (i.e., you, not knowing the mother,) your child has some severe genetic disabilites to overcome. You seem to be terminally addicted to the extremist liberal fascination with a total lack of common sense, a prioritization of emotion over reason, and a cheerful hypocrisy regarding objective reality. Seriously, Carl, I wish only the best for your child - but please don't have any more. The competition for the Darwin Award is already fierce, with clueless Liberals leading the pack. You'd be doing us all a favor by choosing sterility. Think of it as adding to the average IQ of the US population.
I urge you to consider a complete and immediate vasectomy. Rest assured, I get the sense that you won't be losing much. You'll also be able to sleep better knowing that you'll never inadvertantly add another twisted, semi-moronic person such as yourself to the US gene pool. It's a legacy, Carl, you can be proud of - probably the only one you have available, in light of your demonstrated deficiencies.
All the best,
You liberals really don't get it. Don't you know that thinking people who read your nonsense don't hate you, don't even dislike you, in fact, would probably enjoy meeting you? That's because, more than anything else, you are amusing.
Absent cogent, intellectual arguments, all the AC (anti-Coulter, and anti-conservative) morons are able to muster is arguments ad hominem. Which is, of course, always the fallback position for someone without sensible moral conviction.
It's pathetic. But revel in your ignorance. Enjoy your stupidity, even as you wander even deeper into the forest of ignorance you inhabit..
When you have a cogent, intelligent argument against humanity and human nature, then perhaps you can emerge into the daylight of truth.
I am, sincerely yours, in Rum Riot & Rebellion,
If you wert such a pervert you would know that Ann was telling the the truth.Your mind is clouded with junior high thoughts,you may still be protesting the viet nam war. Mabe you could grow up, and break that deal you made with the devil
.......she really bothers you, doesn't she? Love to see liberals respond as...well...as liberals....Hasn't changed much thru history....
....but everybody has to be doing and/or thinking or saying something, huh? You'll have to step up a lot to "reach down" to her level.
From: Robert N.
The person who writes this web site doesn't have the balls to put his/her/its (probably her) name on it. Typical liberal coward.
Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2002 12:33:08
Lemme first start by saying I love your site, and am glad there's a place I can point Coulteristas when they spew her drivel in arguments.
I was wondering, however, why the media promotes Coulter? She is not the true voice of even the republicans - most Repubs I know are goofy, but they understand why assassinating the leaders of Afghanistan and converting them to Christianity won't work, as well as why executing Liberals is not a good idea. Most conservatives (excluding my dad, who for some reason, loves her stuff) see her for what she is - fascist.
In fact, one of my old professors and I were talking about her. He is the republican's republican - believes in free markets, Adam Smith's invisible hand, etc. He makes a point to say that Coulter is pro-fascist, and a good Republican would never want to include her as one of them in the same way a Democrat would never want to include the SLA as one of them.
Which brings me to why the media is pushing Coulter? Are they doing so to show how wacky the Right could be, thus making the Limbaughs and Hannitys look downright compassionate in comparison? Or is there a tide of fascism among the executives of the media companies these days?
Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2002 18:56:10
Ann Coulter is something you just can't handle, keenly intelligent, articulate, conservative and damn hot. The cover of her latest book has libs pulling out their hair because they have nothing close in the way of competition. Who do you have- Hillary, Katie Couric maybe Janet Reno ?
This is the first time I have visited your site and I must say that you fit the stereotype of a New Yorker, no class, emotional and mean spirited. You have got to be a Mets fan. BM[deleted]
Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2002 10:31:23
Found your site from a link on Drudge.com.. I think I'll buy Ann Coulter's book. She sounds very interesting.
From: Jim S.
I was directed to your site from Michael Moore's site's bulletin board. I read your front page covering Coulter's latest essay and visited a couple other pages. I enjoyed the education that you provided, giving the opposing facts, and disproving some of her misquotes. What I hated, and wish you would control, is the useless bashing. (ex. "Oh, I see: It just makes Coulter seem tough and smart to say something provocative.", "which I guess he must be sharing with Coulter on the sly", "Boy, that Coulter sure is clever.") Like mud in water, it clouds the facts and screws up the taste of your argument.
Do you see how the mudslinging draws you down to the exact opinions that you hate about Coulter? You make yourself someone she can point at when she says "Liberals don't try to win arguments, they seek to destroy their opponents and silence dissident opinions."
I would be much more interested in reading you disprove her "facts" with correct facts and proving how she takes quotes out of context by showing the correct content.
Thank you for taking the time to give us your web site and reading my email.
From: Tom C.
Only minutes ago I sent you an email proclaiming admiration for you site. Well, I've just delved further into your site and I only have one request of you: CAN I WORK FOR YOU? I'LL PAY YOU!!! Please???
The best thing about your site is all the great Coulter quotes. Any time I'm feeling a little down, I can just hop over to your site and read some of the quotes ... it reminds me of why I like reading Coulter so much!
From: Thomas Goold
This site is typical of everything the socialist left does in this country. Always attack, make sure there are ample smoke mirrors and lies, and maybe no one will notice you never deal with substance. The left is the only ones who don't notice.
From: Benjamin M.
[beginning snipped for space reasons]
...I'm new to Coulter, but it seems to me that she doesn't really fall under the category of conservative at all, aside from being heavily Christian. As an aside, it is important to note that not nearly all conservatives are Christian, nor are all Christians conservative. However, if it weren't for this particular conviction, I would not classify her as having any political ideology at all. She never mentions economy, foreign policy, crime, the budget, the environment, or anything else for the purposes of proposing solutions; for all I can tell she doesn't care what happens in any of these categories. It seems that her only line of argument is that "liberals are evil" because "liberals focus on ad hominum attacks rather than issues." When I first read your site, I was certain she was an actress; a joke. Contrived, like professional wrestling.
...I know now that she's not a joke, but I still think she's funny.
I would say you are evil. Insidiously evil. How does your father-in-law put up with you? He has to because you seduced his daughter, I suppose. Oh, please don't take this personally. I have friends that are evil.
I've just alerted the Department of Defense about your man-hating, commie- loving, ugly lezzie site.
Hoping that they decide to use a few Smart Bombs to take you out.
Look up the word "Smart" in the dictionary. I can send an interpreter.
Thank god Ann Coulter is around to ridicule worthless assholes like you. Any hope that you've recently contracted a lethal disease?
From: "Chad B.
I would just like to thank you for the site. I am a conservative that disagrees with Ann Coulter's ideas and views. I just wanted to take a few seconds out of my time and tell you that i appreciate the site and the work that is done on it.
Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2002 09:10:54
I enjoyed you site but I must convey my fear that we are going to be responsible for creating another Rush. The world is in trouble. Hate mongers like Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh do not need nor should they have more airing of their views. If Ms. Coulter has had an intelligent thought it wouldn't be worth having to endure the rest of it. It would be like finding a sandwich in a landfill. Her entirely planned and orchestrated talk show appearances only lend her an air of credibility. Personally, I hope she makes trillions of dollars hawking her book. I won't buy it, I already know for what she stands. But there are a sufficient number of people out there who are suffering and find the hate that these people spew to make them feel better. I fear that we are only giving her more of a platform.
From: "Reinhardt Wende"
Your website is a liberal cesspool of lies and inuendo.
I love Ann Coulter! To understand her, as a liberal, would be akin to an atheist understanding the Bible. Blind eyes can't be expected to see the truth. Ann hangs people by their own words, and does it well. Her interview with Donahue, the has-been, was beautiful. He looked like the Jerry Springer of the ranting, PC, left of Stalin, crowd. She was cool collected and reasoned in her response to his rants.
The perky Katie Curic interview was great, and as Ann describes her in her book, as the "Eva Braun" of the airwaves, Katy never lets us down.
Your site is great! I enjoy reading what the enemy is thinking(?) and can better respond in person with what I glean. Oh, and don't forget, the reason the second amendment exists, is because of liberals, and their ideas.
In the flyover! Ed Jacobs
The builder saga, with my reply, continues...
Enjoyed (grin) your reply to my e-mail. Yes the second amendment is a "threat," to any idea which threatens freedom, as it should be. Do your ideas threaten freedom? I would hope they didn't. It was the left in this country that supported socialism and communism, and over 60 million are dead because of it
As a strict constitutionalist I understand well the reasoning behind the amendment, and when it should be used to thwart those who do harm. And╩I further understand the need to protect oneself from those ideas. At the same time I am an avid reader of anti-war.com, and have political leanings which would keep you from pinning me to any party affiliation. I could easily name a dozen popular Republicans who make me want to puke
Your bringing up my first sentence as being irelevent, since it had a religious overtone to it, was meant to negate the rest of what I said. Having been an avowed atheist, in my youth, I too know all the tricks. People who have faith are ignorant right? They aren't as smooth, cool, hip,and most of all...liberal. This is exactly what Ann so perfectly describes in her book.
The fact that the "internet," is full of people like me, is know different than your first assessment about my leading sentence. That is, however, exactly the same response I had upon finding your site, but I went passed my feelings and read on.
From: Kevin R.
Whoever You May Be:
I had never heard of Ann Coulter (thank you Lord) until I saw her on the Daily Show, tonight, the 18th on Comedy Central. Afterwards, I ran to my computer to see if I could get her e-mail address just to let her how much I dislike the fact that she exists. I couldn't find a thing. Then I did a search on google for "I hate Ann Coulter" and I found your website. Your website demonstrates the sort of elevated critical thinking that my "knee-jerk liberal reaction" of the moment is capable of evolving into. Not that I am not intelligent or capable of critical thinking, I just had this tremendously negative gut reaction to everything SHE was saying. ANYWHO... You effectively proved to me with thoughtful and detailed critiques of Coulter's arguments that she is the conservative equivalent of the very "knee-jerk reactionary liberal" she attacks (as demonstrated so well in your "Evil or Stupid" page; brilliant!). She's no good.
Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2002 11:31:40
You go point by point, quote per quote, dismantling Coulter's inane arguments perfectly.
Thanks for such a good site
Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2002 20:51:09
She brushes her teeth (and hair)
Carl Skutsch. All rights reserved.
graphics & design by pixelforge