Notes from Ann Coulter's Editor - humor :)

Chacala_Nayarit

macrumors 6502
Original poster
Oct 6, 2005
315
0
Lakewood, Washington
Dear Ann:

* Please do not spell things phonetically. You clearly mispronounce a lot of words.

* Never start a sentence with "and," "but" or your crush on Timothy McVeigh.

* You have a tendency to write awkward sentences when working with concepts unfamiliar to you, such as American history.

* Although 780 endnotes is indeed impressive, almost all of yours seem to cite dreams, overheard bus conversations and blackface vaudevillian routines.

* Considering his death, perhaps it's best if you rephrase "I want to blow Ronald Reagan" in the past tense.

* Please check to ensure that each sentence has a subject and a verb, not simply a target and a racial slur.

* Contrary to your impassioned statements, James G. Watt's environmental policies did not, in fact, bring back the unicorn.

* Introductory elements of a sentence typically tend to establish either time or condition, not the author's overwhelming insecurity or need to avenge third-grade taunts.

* Keep your sentences simple, not your thoughts.

* The word "God" does not appear in the U.S. Constitution. Neither does the word "genocide."

* If you consult our publishing house's manual of style you'll notice that we frown on printing white text on white paper, despite your crippling fear of all things black.

* Read your manuscript out loud. If it sounds like Deutschland Uber Allies could easily be played in the background while you speak, we may have a problem.

* I'm very uncomfortable with the numerous rape fantasies in your manuscript, whether its the rape of the earth, of our natural resources or of you by Joe McCarthy.

* While I understand that you like to engage in hyperbole, calling yourself "attractive" is simply pushing it.
 

Thomas Veil

macrumors 68020
Feb 14, 2004
2,435
5,528
OBJECTIVE reality
Not bad, not bad.

I almost posted something about Coulter last night, but I guess this is as good a place as any to drop some of her latest craziness:

COULTER: And as for Rove and Libby, I don't know. I don't understand why that would have any effect on the White House. He doesn't need Rove anymore. I feel sorry for Rove personally -- I don't know what's going to happen. If he is indicted, I feel for him personally. It has nothing to do with Bush and the Republican Party. He doesn't need Rove again, and I never heard of Scooter Libby until 10 minutes ago.

GIBSON: What about DeLay? His picture is on the screen, as well.

COULTER: I think that is not going to inure to the Democrats' benefit, to be having this obviously political prosecution of a political enemy. No, that just shows them to be the fascists that they are.

[...]

COULTER: And by the way [Bush], if he sends up someone that we have been clamoring for, the deep bench of right-wing --

GIBSON: Some names?

COULTER: Well, my favorite, Janice Rogers Brown.

GIBSON: Why is she your favorite?

COULTER: She has a well thought-out, conservative judicial philosophy. She is eminently qualified. And most importantly -- not most importantly, but importantly -- she is a black woman, and that will drive the Democrats so crazy, we might not even be able to execute them in Texas, which is a darn shame.
Source

By the way, I am presently working on obtaining evidence that Ann Coulter and Cruella de Ville are one and the same person. I've never seen 'em together, have you?

 

Thomas Veil

macrumors 68020
Feb 14, 2004
2,435
5,528
OBJECTIVE reality
Wait a minute, wait a minute...new evidence coming in:

Cruella de Ville, Cruella de Ville
If she doesn’t scare you, no evil thing will
To see her is to take a sudden chill
Cruella, Cruella de Ville

The glare in her look, the ice in her stare
You innocent children, you’d better beware
The world was such a wholesome place until
Cruella, Cruella de Ville

At first you think Cruella is a devil
But after time has worn away the shock
You come to realize, you've seen her kind of eyes
Watching you from underneath a rock

This vampire bat, this inhuman beast
She ought to be locked up and never released
She's like a spider waiting for the kill
Cruella, Cruella de Ville
There ya go! Proof positive. :D
 

mac-er

macrumors 65816
Apr 9, 2003
1,455
0
Is this your website? Since this is word from word from there.

Chacala_Nayarit said:
Dear Ann:

* Please do not spell things phonetically. You clearly mispronounce a lot of words.

* Never start a sentence with "and," "but" or your crush on Timothy McVeigh.

* You have a tendency to write awkward sentences when working with concepts unfamiliar to you, such as American history.

* Although 780 endnotes is indeed impressive, almost all of yours seem to cite dreams, overheard bus conversations and blackface vaudevillian routines.

* Considering his death, perhaps it's best if you rephrase "I want to blow Ronald Reagan" in the past tense.

* Please check to ensure that each sentence has a subject and a verb, not simply a target and a racial slur.

* Contrary to your impassioned statements, James G. Watt's environmental policies did not, in fact, bring back the unicorn.

* Introductory elements of a sentence typically tend to establish either time or condition, not the author's overwhelming insecurity or need to avenge third-grade taunts.

* Keep your sentences simple, not your thoughts.

* The word "God" does not appear in the U.S. Constitution. Neither does the word "genocide."

* If you consult our publishing house's manual of style you'll notice that we frown on printing white text on white paper, despite your crippling fear of all things black.

* Read your manuscript out loud. If it sounds like Deutschland Uber Allies could easily be played in the background while you speak, we may have a problem.

* I'm very uncomfortable with the numerous rape fantasies in your manuscript, whether its the rape of the earth, of our natural resources or of you by Joe McCarthy.

* While I understand that you like to engage in hyperbole, calling yourself "attractive" is simply pushing it.
 

crdean1

macrumors 6502a
Feb 14, 2005
675
1
Texas
Thomas Veil said:
Not bad, not bad.

I almost posted something about Coulter last night, but I guess this is as good a place as any to drop some of her latest craziness:

Source

By the way, I am presently working on obtaining evidence that Ann Coulter and Cruella de Ville are one and the same person. I've never seen 'em together, have you?

Very funny indeed. I have actually had that thought. I do like Ann quite a bit, and have seen her speak a few times, but one has to wonder.
 

crdean1

macrumors 6502a
Feb 14, 2005
675
1
Texas
jelloshotsrule said:
in other words you like evil??? :confused:
I like Ann for entertainment purposes mainly. I definitely don't agree with everything she says, nor to I form views from her rants, although she did have an interesting book on McCarthyism...Think it was called "Slaner" or something. It has been a while since I read it.
 

IJ Reilly

macrumors P6
Jul 16, 2002
17,915
1,466
Palookaville
crdean1 said:
I like Ann for entertainment purposes mainly. I definitely don't agree with everything she says, nor to I form views from her rants, although she did have an interesting book on McCarthyism...Think it was called "Slaner" or something. It has been a while since I read it.
Historical revisionism is interesting?
 

IJ Reilly

macrumors P6
Jul 16, 2002
17,915
1,466
Palookaville
crdean1 said:
From different points of view, to me, absolutely.:eek:
I'm not sure you understand what is generally meant by the term historical revisionism. It means the deliberate misrepresentation or fabrication of historical information to make a political or ideological point. This is what Coulter does in her efforts to resurrect Joe McCarthy. Even conservative historians who have advanced the argument that the McCarthy era is misunderstood were outraged by Coulter's callous disregard for the facts in her book. You could look it up.
 

solvs

macrumors 603
Jun 25, 2002
5,693
1
LaLaLand, CA
Thomas Veil said:
COULTER: She has a well thought-out, conservative judicial philosophy. She is eminently qualified. And most importantly -- not most importantly, but importantly -- she is a black woman, and that will drive the Democrats so crazy
I don't get this one. Does she mean that liberals don't like black women, or that they won't attack her because of liberal guilt? I shouldn't use reason to think about Ann. My head might explode.
 

Thomas Veil

macrumors 68020
Feb 14, 2004
2,435
5,528
OBJECTIVE reality
I wondered about that myself. I suppose she means that the very concept of a conservative black woman is anathema to Democrats. But then with Ann's strange mind, who knows what she was talking about.
 

crdean1

macrumors 6502a
Feb 14, 2005
675
1
Texas
IJ Reilly said:
I'm not sure you understand what is generally meant by the term historical revisionism. It means the deliberate misrepresentation or fabrication of historical information to make a political or ideological point. This is what Coulter does in her efforts to resurrect Joe McCarthy. Even conservative historians who have advanced the argument that the McCarthy era is misunderstood were outraged by Coulter's callous disregard for the facts in her book. You could look it up.
You may be misinformed, IJ, I don't see how pointing out the Venona project's contents in the defense of McCarthy makes the book less credible in facts. I have not seen the conservative critics you speak of dispute her use of factual information to prove her point. Have you read the book, or just read what people say about the book?:rolleyes:

I understand political historical revisionism, and there are many authors today who use that technique to convey their message. I also wrote in an earlier post that I don't agree with everything Ann says or writes, but one can't help but relate Venona to McCarthy and wonder if she has a point.

Please don't think Ann shapes my political views, that is not what I meant by any means. She's more of an entertainer that has a good point periodically.
 

tristan

macrumors 6502a
Jul 19, 2003
765
0
high-rise in beautiful bethesda
I read some of her columns on her web site just to see how she wrote. It does seem to me like she's nuttier on TV than in newsprint. On TV it seems like she goes from interesting point to raving lunatic in about three sentences. In print it takes several paragraphs, and sometimes she even stays lucid for an entire column or two, coming across more like a serious political analyst than a nutcase. Rare, but it happens.

BTW I did saw Ann on O'Reilly, and it looked like even he was getting fed up with her.
 

IJ Reilly

macrumors P6
Jul 16, 2002
17,915
1,466
Palookaville
crdean1 said:
You may be misinformed, IJ, I don't see how pointing out the Venona project's contents in the defense of McCarthy makes the book less credible in facts. I have not seen the conservative critics you speak of dispute her use of factual information to prove her point. Have you read the book, or just read what people say about the book?:rolleyes:

I understand political historical revisionism, and there are many authors today who use that technique to convey their message. I also wrote in an earlier post that I don't agree with everything Ann says or writes, but one can't help but relate Venona to McCarthy and wonder if she has a point.

Please don't think Ann shapes my political views, that is not what I meant by any means. She's more of an entertainer that has a good point periodically.
As people who I regard as useful and reliable information sources, lying ideologues are struck right off my list. Coulter is no historian.

You might want to start with historian Ronald Radosh. He's had some choice words for Coulter's version of history. Like I said, you could look it up.

One of the most reputable scholars who has studied the McCarthy era in great detail, Ron Radosh, is appalled at the damage Coulter has done to the work he and many others have painstakingly done over the years. "I am furious and upset about her book," he told me last week. "I am reading it - she uses my stuff, Harvey Klehr and John Haynes, Allen Weinstein etc. to distort what we actually say and to make ludicrous and historically incorrect arguments. You might recall my lengthy and negative review in The New Republic a few years ago of Herman's book on McCarthy; well, she is ten times worse than Herman. At least he tried to use bona fide historical methods of research and argument." Now Radosh has endured ostracism and abuse for insisting that many of McCarthy's victims were indeed Communist spies or agents. But he draws the line at Coulter's crude and inflammatory defense of McCarthy. "I think it is important that those who are considered critics of left/liberalism don't stop using our critical faculties when self-proclaimed conservatives start producing crap."
 

solvs

macrumors 603
Jun 25, 2002
5,693
1
LaLaLand, CA
tristan said:
BTW I did saw Ann on O'Reilly, and it looked like even he was getting fed up with her.
Billy-boy is retiring soon (or so he says). I think he's just fed up with everything. He was on Jon Stewart's show and he looked like he was about to explode. Over nothing. All Jon said was that he should be going after the neocons more and he just started going off. It was quite entertaining.

Which is more than I can say for Ann. Even when she makes a point, it's filled with so much vitriol and misinformation, I don't know why conservative put up with her. Even when I do agree with her I don't like her.
 

crdean1

macrumors 6502a
Feb 14, 2005
675
1
Texas
I did not say that she was a historian, nor would I make that claim. Her book was not written as a historical account, rather a pundit rant...and she did bring up some good points.
 

IJ Reilly

macrumors P6
Jul 16, 2002
17,915
1,466
Palookaville
crdean1 said:
I did not say that she was a historian, nor would I make that claim. Her book was not written as a historical account, rather a pundit rant...and she did bring up some good points.
And what use is a "pundit rant" when it's based on lies?
 

crdean1

macrumors 6502a
Feb 14, 2005
675
1
Texas
IJ Reilly said:
And what use is a "pundit rant" when it's based on lies?
Are you saying she lied about Venona, or McCarthy? If so, what was she lying about? Just curious, I'm not a historian myself.:)
 

IJ Reilly

macrumors P6
Jul 16, 2002
17,915
1,466
Palookaville
crdean1 said:
Are you saying she lied about Venona, or McCarthy? If so, what was she lying about? Just curious, I'm not a historian myself.:)
I don't know what she says specifically about Venona and McCarthy. Doesn't matter. For the record, I don't think anyone really disputes the fact that at least some of the people McCarthy pursued were Soviet agents, or had been, on one level or another. The problem with the way HUAC conducted its hearings during this period was in how McCarthy was prepared to destroy anyone who came into his wide cross-hairs, and by any means necessary, guilty or not. McCarthy was a vicious ideologue, and a first order nut job. (He and Coulter have that much in common.) He ruined people's lives just for who they knew, their friends and aquaintences. Admiring McCarthy for pursuing Communists is like admiring Mussolini for making the trains run on time.

As for Coulter's historical inaccuracies, I recommend you again to the words of Ronald Radosh.
 

rdowns

macrumors Penryn
Jul 11, 2003
27,345
12,409
solvs said:
Billy-boy is retiring soon (or so he says). I think he's just fed up with everything. He was on Jon Stewart's show and he looked like he was about to explode. Over nothing. All Jon said was that he should be going after the neocons more and he just started going off. It was quite entertaining.

Which is more than I can say for Ann. Even when she makes a point, it's filled with so much vitriol and misinformation, I don't know why conservative put up with her. Even when I do agree with her I don't like her.
This past weekend, SNL had a very funny send up of O'Reilly.
 

Thomas Veil

macrumors 68020
Feb 14, 2004
2,435
5,528
OBJECTIVE reality
rdowns said:
This past weekend, SNL had a very funny send up of O'Reilly.
I've only now started paying attention to The Colbert Report, and I think it is a very funny sendup of O'Reilly: the pomposity, the uberpatriotism, the self-righteousness and hypocrisy.... If that's what the producers were going for, they nailed it. :)
 

solvs

macrumors 603
Jun 25, 2002
5,693
1
LaLaLand, CA
rdowns said:
This past weekend, SNL had a very funny send up of O'Reilly.
It would have been funnier if it wasn't so accurate. I think Darrell did too good of a job. The Colbert Report has the same "problem". People like Ann and Bill don't even need to be satirized, just emulated. Funny and scary.
 

zimv20

macrumors 601
Jul 18, 2002
4,388
7
toronto
i thought the best bit of that SNL episode was tina fey, during weekend update (this is from memory, sorry if it's off):

"Sixty-six percent of Americans think President Bush is leading the country in the wrong direction. And thirty-four percent think Adam and Eve rode dinosaurs to church!"