A Thin Blonde Liar And The Conservative Determined To Expose Her
When Brad Friedman was about to debate Ann Coulter on a radio show, he got the usual bile-filled emails:
Then, into this spectacle of spittle and disputum came an email from the gentlemanly Daniel Borchers, expressing that he was (and notice the archaic restraint) “highly critical of Ann Coulter.” Borchers is, if you will, the anti-Coulter, a position he arrives at from a decidedly unexpected corner. He loathes the queen of contumely not because he’s a liberal who’s taken the bait, but because he’s a conservative who thinks she and her kin are a disgrace to the conservative movement.Borchers works for a labor-management organization dealing with health and safety issues, headquartered in Washington, D.C. He fashions himself an old-school conservative, and has been on a singularly lonely fight for true conservative values and policymaking in America for quite a few years. In 1996, he began publishing a newsletter called BrotherWatch, to combat what he describes as the “growing extremism within the Conservative Movement.” It runs stories about and interviews with personalities from across the broad political spectrum, “from Alan Keyes to Alan Colmes,” says Borchers.
His title as editor earned him media credentials at the annual Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC), along with permission to distribute his newsletter to attendees. That is, until he actually did so. In 2002, he showed up carrying a special anti-Ann edition of BrotherWatch, which called Coulter on the carpet for, among other things, the “mass of contradictions which abound in her life” and for the “extremist” positions that, following the 9/11 terrorist attacks, seemed to push the “acid-tongued blonde” toward a descent “into madness.”
“BrotherWatch cannot abide her rhetorical excesses and ideological extremes, and the underlying emotional cauldron of hatred which animates so much of what Ann Coulter says and does,” Borchers wrote. “Nor can we tolerate the consequential dysfunctional behavior which is manifested as hypocrisy and mendacity, hate-mongering and abuse of power. These are traits which Coulter exposes in others, traits which no one who calls themselves ‘conservative’ should emulate.”
The issue depicts Coulter on the occasion of the death of her friend Barbara Olson in the plane that crashed into the Pentagon, and decries her disinterest in taking the moment to reflect on Olson’s life of “Christianity, spirituality and graciousness,” preferring instead to “scrounge through the wreckage, find a piece of her…and beat Hillary Clinton over the head with it.”
...Now Borchers is at work on a documentary film titled The Truth About Ann, due out in June to coincide with the anticipated release of Coulter’s next book. Early press materials promise the film “exposes the extremist nature of Conservatism’s preeminent diva and reigning political icon.” Employing liberal doses of Coulter’s many media appearances and miles-long paper trail, it promises to reveal how her brand of “‘New McCarthyism’ is poisoning millions of minds.”
Borchers is starting to produce some smaller PowerPoint presentations highlighting various examples of Coulter’s opportunism. His first presentation, “The Gospel of Ann,” displays Coulter’s “jaw-dropping expression of faith in God…a faith which otherwise seems so empty in everything Coulter does.” Borchers says Coulter’s “track record of practicing what she preaches is pretty dismal.” He hopes the presentation will “call to the attention of fellow Christians (left and right)” the anti-Christian tendencies and hate-speech practices of those, like Coulter, who declare their fealty to the conservative movement while eroding its tenets.
“Honor requires outing,” Borchers says. “Silence is complicity.”
Is Ann Coulter worth hating this much, or is she just a convenient target? I just gotta think that in twenty years, people will look back and wonder why they gave so much time and attention to her, especially since it's what makes her career go.
Are "preeminent Divas" the ones who make things happen? What is the 'kingdom' of a "reigning political icon"?
If living your life with a "mass of contradictions" is impermissible, most people are in DEEP shit.
Crid at January 4, 2006 9:42 AM
I totally agree with you, Crid. Ann Coulter hardly registers on my radar at all. She does have very pretty hair, though.
Lena at January 4, 2006 10:34 AM
> “scrounge through the wreckage,
> find a piece of her…and beat
> Hillary Clinton over the head
> with it.”
Golly, what an INDELICATE thing to say!
I wouldn't have said it either, but the point is that real life is not cotillion. If you're going to harsh someone politically, don't weaken your argument with matters of taste. She's "blonde"; Michael Moore is 'obese'. What's the point?
On a C-SPAN Booknotes interview years ago, she said that 72% of NPR's listeners are conservative. I've been periodically emailing her for the cit ever since.
Crid at January 4, 2006 11:24 AM
Get back to work, Crid.
Lena at January 4, 2006 11:37 AM
"If living your life with a "mass of contradictions" is impermissible, most people are in DEEP shit."
WORD!!!
Pirate Jo at January 4, 2006 11:48 AM
> back to work
What, do YOU wanna drive into the Valley and put credits on game shows? It's still feels like the holidays... MLK day is just around the corner.
Crid at January 4, 2006 12:57 PM
What does "put credits on game shows" mean? I'm a little challenged.
Lena at January 4, 2006 1:46 PM
Produced by This Guy, directed by That Guy, furs by Dicker & Dicker of Beverly Hills, Copyright 2006 Don't-Fuck-With-Us-Media Incorporated.
Crid at January 4, 2006 2:01 PM
Before the dawn of the blogosphere, what did brainy guys who put credits on game shows do during the workday to stay sane?
Lena at January 4, 2006 2:49 PM
Can't speak for brainy guys, and this workday doesn't start until 6pm, but back in the day you pick fights with strangers on BBS's.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bulletin_board_system
Crid at January 4, 2006 3:49 PM
you COULD etc
crid at January 4, 2006 3:50 PM
“I am so happy to hear that a conservative is going after Ann Coulter - she's a hack who receives far too much attention.
I happened to see her once on O'Reilly where she proceeded to spew hatred towards the so called "hate mongers".
The good people at mediamatters.org (a site worth checking every day BTW) apparently attacked her by simply repeating her lies - in context.
She doesn't like to be criticized because she responded by calling MediaMatters "Nazi Block Watchers".
Anyone who uses the ad homonym abusive argument usually doesn't have a valid rebuttal
I doubt that Ann Coulter is an honest person.”
Van at January 5, 2006 9:10 AM
Do we really need a movie to learn that Ann Coulter says hateful things?
Now, a movie in which Morgan Spurlock moves in with her for 30 days to see if it affects his health -- that I'd see.
LYT at January 5, 2006 12:20 PM
Why is it that nobody seems to notice that argument about issues is HEALTHY?
If there is a radical Islamic transvestite Nazi abortionist gun-nut Democrat in town yelling from a soapbox, isn't that EXACTLY where we need him/her/it to be?
Ann, like Rush, is entertainment which gets an issue on the air. That's FAR better than having everything cooked up in "smoke-filled rooms" rubber-stamped or invisible. Maybe there is resentment about tactics; I know a couple of people who hate Rush for the cutesy schtick ("lovable little fuzzball", "Doctor of Democracy") he uses, but a few questions of people who "hate" him suggest to me that his biggest offense is really in raising an issue - which is always uncomfortable for people who want to sit and relax all the time. Ann has to do something different than Rush, so there you have it.
There are two things wonderfully useful in the posing of media pundits: you can observe others for clues in their reaction to the pundits' statements, and you can use the pundit as a sounding board to illustrate absurdity on the part of other people. Example: Quote President Clinton, or people claiming to speak for him (like Carville) but attach Ann's name to the quote, and see what you get.
Radwaste at January 6, 2006 7:28 AM
Resentment about tactics is far too mild a term. Abhorrence of the extreme intellectual dishonesty consistently displayed is closer to the mark. It's one thing to present all known facts surrounding an issue and then deliver your interpretation of them, it's another to present only the facts that bolster your argument or refute someone else's, then claim you've done the first, and attack as mendacious, insane or stupid anyone who challenges your presentation.
Alan at January 6, 2006 8:12 AM
Leave a comment