Thursday, June 15, 2006


Coulter Admits Hypocrisy

Last Sunday, Coulter was on the Steve Yuhas show (Yuhas think: gay Rush clone and major league tool) on San Diego's KOGO radio. I took off from the beach early to get back home and call. I decided to find out whether Coulter was either a 44-year old virgin or the world's biggest hypocrite for writing in her book that liberals supposedly are against chastity. I kind of knew--but only because of a Coulter quote I read in Joe Conason's book Big Lies: "Let's say I go out every night and meet a guy and have sex with him. Good for me. I'm single." I also wanted to get it in that Coulter is a lying tub of shit. Here's the conversation:

STEVE YUHAS: We have a call. I don't know--this guy wants to ask you something. Troy in San Diego, welcome to KOGO.

SCOOBIE: Hey, what's happening Steve?

STEVE YUHAS: Nothing's happening, bro. What about you?

SCOOBIE: Oh, just, you know, chillin' and I was part of the group of bloggers that exposed Coulter's book Slander as a literary fraud [click here and here], but--

STEVE YUHAS: Wow! [sarcastically]

SCOOBIE: I really enjoyed Godless. It was really unintentionally hilarious. For example, on page one, she makes the ham-handed generalization--

STEVE YUHAS: You got all the way to page one without dismissing it. I'm shocked. [Coulter laughs] But go ahead and make the point quickly.

SCOOBIE: Yeah, the ham-handed generalization that liberals do not value chastity and that leads to the question: Does Coulter believe in chastity before marriage and is she practicing what she preaches? [Laughing] I'd really kind of like--

STEVE YUHAS: Well in all defense, I talk about things--I talk about gays not being able to get married and things but I'm certainly living a gay lifestyle. Does that mean THAT I can't have a political position because I talk about it?

SCOOBIE: No, the thing is that she's bemoaning the fact that liberals allegedly don't--

STEVE YUHAS: So you don't like generalizations. Is that what you're saying? But you generalized your review of her first book. [note: Slander was her second book]

SCOOBIE: It's a--no, what we did we exposed her as being a fraud--


STEVE YUHAS: I bet you got millions of hits. Troy, thanks for the call. So Ann, did you generalize in the book? Did you over-generalize? I don't want the caller to seem stupid since books are generally generalizations of topics unless you're writing a specific reference to the Battle of the Bulge, you tend not to be topic-specific. But what about that? What about generalizations? Is it too upsetting to the liberals to see that they're being talked about?

COULTER: Yeah, well that's basically it what I wrote about in my press review of my own book in this week's column.

STEVE YUHAS: I loved that, by the way.

COULTER: Thank you.

STEVE YUHAS: You're welcome.

COULTER: No, that isn't even a particularly good argument. If that's the best he's coming up with for the entire book on the liberal's religion--to demand to know if I've ever had premarital sex and the book must be withdrawn if the answer were "yes."

REALITY: I wasn't even remotely suggesting that the book be withdrawn. I just wanted to mock Coulter's hypocrisy. Being a right-wing author is a good gig if you have no integrity or soul. Coulter sells books to the rubes extolling the virtues of chastity (and how liberals are immoral) and then uses the money to live a promiscuous lifestyle. This is just one variant of Republican sexual hypocrisy. Don't you right-wing lurkers feel stupid? Let me know in the comments.

As for Yuhas' smug comment that I've received millions of hits, just for my work on Coulter, I've received hundreds of thousands--and I've received many e-mails by people thanking me for allowing them to see the light about what a complete phony Coulter is. I have not received a single e-mail indicating that my blog on Slander is incorrect in any way.

Scoobie: Can you take up the "creationism is shameful" T-shirt thing? I know it's not in the book, but she's gone beyond her usual fantasy raving ... it wouldn't be a problem if people weren't simply repeating it as fact.

If this is false - and I haven't found any indication it's true - any self-respecting publication that carried it should run a correction. But, wait, that would require intellectual honesty.
No, I don't feel stupid, but you should. Why is it that liberals are completely incapable of debating a topic "straight up"? Is it because the facts just aren't on your side? Coulter's book says that liberalism is a godless religion, and you are unable to intelligently counter her arguments. So what do you do? You play "gotcha!" with one quote from her book about sex and then pretend that you have out-debated her on the actual topic of her book. That is pathetic, dishonest, and completely predictable left-wing behavior.
I think it would be easier to intelligently counter her arguments if she made some intelligent arguments. Smearing half the population is not an intelligent argument. How do you debunk the idea that liberalism is a "godless religion"? One way would be to point out that many prominent liberals are, in fact, religious; except in the book she slanders the faith of, among others, Jim Wallis for not toeing the Republican party line. That's not a proveable statement she's come back with there, it's just another smear. If a liberal says something that disproves one of her wacko beliefs, she'll just say they're lying. It's classic conspiracy logic. You can't debate people like that because they know that the bigger a lie is, the harder it is to refute it. Especially if you keep on coming back with bigger lies.
So, if she were not a hypocrite would you take her opinions more seriously and possibly allow yourself to be persuaded that she's right about some things. What about if you met someone else who believes the exact same things as her and is not a hypocrite in any way? Could you be persuaded by that person?

If so, I could probably introduce you to some people. If not, your whole phoning/writing thing on this topic is pointless. For that matter, it's probably pointless for me to even write you this comment.

Believe me, I'm not trying to be rude. It just seems to me that a lot of people simply are not willing to even allow themselves to be persuaded because that would necessitate change both before and after the persuasion. Change is difficult to accept sometimes.

Good luck to you.
The Pope is against the Iraq War- so was the previous one.

I suppose this "liberal" postion makes Pope Benedict and Pope John Paul II "godless"?

See Hondo? It's quite easy to refute even the basic premise of the book. But the success of AC's books shows that it no longer matters. It's just who can shout the loudest, and the facts be damned.

The simple fact is that this is just another paranoid right-wing shopping list of gripes, delivered in what purports to be a debate, but is little more than a rant. You can't debate with the facts, because they're aren't any.
I love how liberals elevate hypocrisy to be the greatest, largest, most signficant moral lapse a human being can commit. These are the same folks who loudly have supported dictators, the destruction of defenseless unborn babies, the constant categorization of humanity into gender/race/sexuality/ethnicity, wish to tax anything that breathes, and generally have a deep distrust of their own country and those who love it.

Yes, I value their opinion 100%.

As for Ann Coulter, while I agree that she is loud and tactless, her arguments are solid, she's extremely intelligent, and should be attacked solely on the substance of her reasoning and arguments. Commenting on irrelevant topics like her looks or when she has sex only reek of defeat and desperation.

She has liberals running around like mad dogs, and she's loving every minute of it.
basic rules of debate state that when you are at a loss for any intellegent point, then you should attack your opponet. Based on Ms Coulters tactics, it would seem she has no real point except stirring up the dirt.
Since when is liberalism a religion? It means people who have open minds and will consider views that they don't already hold or believe in.
Isn't the concept of a 'godless religion' an oxymoron anyway?
She mocks anyone who is truly religious by her pervasive hate. Even if it is only to sell books its hard to understand how someone can allow themselves to stoop so low and to give her a platform.
What a great article!

It truly exposes what a hypocrite Coulter.

Kudos for sharing.

I've noticed some of the comments on here are equally as puzzling as Coulter's own words. It reminds me of something someone recently said:

If Republicans were chickens, they'd vote for Colonel Sanders.

I simply don't understand how people can continually listen to those who care nothing about their well-being. I used to be a Republican and still don't understand what the hell I was thinking. I was brainwashed - and that's the closest thing I can come to understanding them. All you can do is simply try to be patient and wait for them to wake up on their own.
stop thinking that only the democRATS want to help people. cuz that's BS. not all republicans are fascist assholes, just like not all dems are retarded. ... well the last part is debatable. in all honesty, our nation wouldnt survive without BOTH parties. so stop wasting time bashing one another and actually get something done.
I always deeply suspected that she was simply playing games. Its rather hard not to notice if you know something about how lawyers are trained. Her tactic is so simple but so effective. Someone will make a statement about abortion (e.g. women should have the right to choose because xyz). She will shoot back with the exact opposite and include some sort of irreverent conclusion or sweeping generalization. As though she memorized the book of fallacious arguments. She will use specific code words in her return. We all know what they are: Marxism, communism, liberal, moral, bible, god, real Christan or some variation on a theme. These are loaded words and are very powerful tools of persuasion. Very often, code words and fallacious statements are employed against juries to appeal to their empathy or prejudices.

I took notice because she has a pattern. She does the same shyster routine over and over and continues to make money - not from liberals mind you - but conservatives. Why does she do it? Well she made millions on selling snake oil, the oldest profession in human history.

There is no countering her arguments because they aren't arguments. They are opinions, her opinions. She probably doesn't even write the book so what does it matter? Anyone who disagrees with her is a liar, a lapsed Christan (or non-perfected jew), or simply a moral sinkhole. That is not intelligent debate based on the facts. That is a straw man. Straw men tend to fall apart when confronted. That is exactly what this site is doing. I applaud that. Plagiarism is a major problem and I would think someone of her background (being editor of a major law review) would know better.
Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?