Wednesday, January 07, 2009

Ann Coulter's "Guilty", or Why I love Matt Lauer

I've always been a big fan of Matt Lauer's. While his job on The Today Show often calls for him to do what most of us consider journalistic fluff, occasionally he gets to show his real talent for pointing out people's hypocrisy (anyone remember his interview with Tom Cruise about post-partum depression and anti-depressants?). This morning, Lauer took on one of my least favorite people, Ann Coulter. It seems Coulter is promoting a new book Guilty, in which she claims, among other things, that all of society's ills are to blame on the single mother. While this certainly isn't a new argument, Coulter makes the argument with such venom that it is difficult to get past her obvious hatred for women. Lauer deftly questions both her points and her tone. Coulter is, as usual, condescending and, to quote Tom Cruise from the aforementioned infamous interview, "glib."

On a side note, one of the reasons I dislike Ann Coulter (and Dr. Laura and their various cohorts) is that they bash the very institutions that got them where they are today. Coulter and Dr. Laura (sorry my references aren't more up-to-date; it's early here in CU Land) are both very outspoken against feminism and feminists, be they of the first, second, third, or fourth waves. Coulter's numerous idiotic statements, such as when she said in a 2003 interview with The Guardian that "It would be a much better country if women did not vote. That is simply a fact. In fact, in every presidential election since 1950—except Goldwater in '64—the Republican would have won, if only the men had voted," reveal her true ignorance. If women were still denied the right to vote, it is highly unlikely she'd have an international audience with whom to share her regressive ideas.

5 comments:

solon said...

I am not sure is you are entirely correct. Even before Feminism or before women had the right to vote, there were always certain individuals, some tokens or some who fought for power, that could make a public impact.

With an education at Cornell, Michigan Law, and a clerkship with Clarence Thomas and membership in the Federalist Society, Coulter seems to be nothing much but a token in her ideological group who extended her fame by being a polemicist.

But every ideological groups needs a token like Coulter. This is why I would argue that Coulter may not have benefited from feminist; she has only benefited from a intellectually bankrupt Conservative movement.

harrogate said...

M, you will "enjoy" today's column by the green-blooded Brent Bozell, entitled Coulter V the Counter-Coulters.

As always, Bozell's complaint is of liberal media bias, he is upset because everyone, including Lauer, is beating up on Ann, who might be a bit over the top, but no more so than all those damned leftists who always receive a free pass from the Media.

Bozell does not mention her treatment of feminism in general or of single mothers in particular, but as a regular reader of this guy, Harrogate can assure ye that Bozell agrees with all of it.

Harrogate's take? Whether Coulter be token, or whether she be a true beneficiary of feminism even as she tries to quash it, she is one of the more miserable excuses for a public personality that we have. In all seriousness, Paris Hilton contributes more substance to our national discourse than does Coulter.

M said...

You make some good points, Solon, but given that Coulter was born in 1961, amidst the first wave of feminism, I would argue that she benefited from that wave--look at the education credentials you cited. While there have been individuals who have made a public impact, I don't think we'd have the number of conservative (or liberal) women writing, publishing, or holding court without feminism.

Anonymous said...

How can anyone respect Coulter or Drudge for the lying 'banned from NBC' campaign to help her sell books? Drudge turned into a MSM hack. Anyway, Ann Coulter’s book is not outrageous. She is part of the neo-con, zionist machine. Her books are not controversial, they are neo-con wet dreams. Read a book that’s actually been banned like “America Deceived”, not a corporate-approved Coulter ‘novel’. Don’t waste your hard-earned money on Coulter.
Last link (before Google Books bends to gov’t Will and drops the title):
America Deceived (book)

DickPirozzolo said...

Ann Coulter's latest book Guilty gives us a rehash of the Swiftboat controversy surrounding John Kerry's presidential bid. She gets so mired in her own detail that she misses a fundamental truth. John Kerry had already had a Vietnam Tour to his record and returned to Vietnam voluntarily. George Bush, like so many well connected citizens, avoided Vietnam by getting into the National Guard. He also received over a million dollars worth of pilot training and never completed his military obligation.
Dick Pirozzolo