Most people learn at a young age that one of the surest signs that someone has lost an argument is when they have no response, and resort to name-calling. The older you got, the nastier the names got, but the result was the same: Your opponent had nothing substantive to say and could not dispute your position.Ann Coulter is the 13-year-old schoolyard bully on the national political scene. Her vicious name-calling in reference to Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards last Friday underscored that not only is she not a woman of substance, but the same hateful, scared child that attacked everyone who ever thought differently than she did.
Coulter also, evidently, has a problem with homosexuality. It seems to be her epithet of choice, as she's used it to attempt to demean John Edwards, Al Gore, Hillary Clinton and Bill Clinton. But why? What is it about that label she pins on people that makes her feel superior? (It is worth noting that she allegedly has a brother who is gay.) Is she inferring that homosexuals are weak, and therefore ineffective leaders? Does she think we could possibly have more ineffective leadership than George W. Bush? And if Coulter thinks Bush is ineffective, does that mean she thinks he's gay too?
The answer, of course, is that there is no answer. Coulter has no logic to her arguments. She's staked out a place on the extreme right-wing fringe (she's on record as saying Joe McCarthy was right in his witch hunts of the 1950s and that he was a "great American")and she's sticking to it, although all she seems to be doing to defend her beliefs is to engage in name-calling. What does she think of John Edwards' healthcare plan? Or Barack Obama's healthcare plan? Or Al Gore's environmental policy recommendations? We don't know because she hasn't bothered to say, although we're sure she'd simply dismiss the individuals without addressing their ideas.
Hey, maybe all this politics and policy is over her head. That's fine; it's not for everyone. But, what, then, makes her think she's qualified to talk about these people? There are probably some extremists who admire her for speaking her mind, however hate-filled it may be. Maybe there are those who admire her mean streak.
Coulter got her start in political commentary on MSNBC in the mid-90s, where she was a legal correspondent. She was fired from that station for the first time when she insulted the former U.S. ambassador to France during the woman's funeral. She was brought back, only to be dismissed again when interviewing Bobby Muller, a paralyzed Vietnam veteran who was campaigning against landmines. When Muller explained that many soldiers in Vietnam were killed or maimed by landmines the U.S. had laid, Coulter responded "No wonder you guys lost." The insensitivity of that statement is staggering enough - and insulting to all veterans - but to demean Muller, who founded Vietnam Veterans of America Foundation (now called Veterans of America) and has been a tireless spokesman for veterans affairs for 30 years, is inexcusable. This from a woman who has publicly declared herself a Christian and a follower of Jesus.
Of course, she later found opportunities at Fox News and CNN. NBC's Today Show has even hosted her from time to time. In 2006, she was featured on the cover of Time magazine. All of these entities bear some responsibility for her continued presence on the national scene.
There are two things that give Ann Coulter and people like her attention: The first is the Republican party, which caters to the extreme right-wing, and keeps inviting her to speak at functions like last week's Conservative Political Action Conference (although there have been calls in the days since Friday to keep her away from now on). The second thing, and by far, the most enabling, is the corporate media's attitude that "news is entertainment."
When people like Coulter, Bill O'Reilly or Sean Hannity spew their ill-informed, misguided and often hate-filled rhetoric on television, it's not because the news organizations are trying to bring audiences different sides to political issues. It's because they know the Coulters and O'Reillys and Hannitys will say outrageous things that are out-of-step with mainstream viewers. They want viewers to pause in front of the TV and ask "What did she just say?" and then sit down and observe every train-wreck minute of it. (I hesitate to add any left-wing names to the list of people saying outrageous things on television - not because left-wing folks don't say outrageous things, but because they are rarely, if ever, invited on the Crossfires and Hardballs. All of which has the effect of shifting the whole debate to right, but that's another matter.)Coulter's an attention-seeker, like the bully in the schoolyard who has to get in everyone's face and say the most repugnant things he or she can say. But she's proven that she'll say anything to get attention and to peddle her books -- like when she took to the airwaves last year to promote her latest and knew she'd get everyone's attention by calling the 9/11 widows "self-obsessed women... who enjoy their husbands' deaths." Hurt entire families that lost a loved one? Pervert historical facts? Offend the national consensus? Who cares! She's got books to sell!
Having no shame and saying anything to get attention makes her a media whore. Not having anything substantive to say makes Ann Coulter a phony. She only offers hate and ignorance. Is this really who the Republicans and conservatives want representing them?
If not, the time to say so is now.
