THE AFF NETWORK

What is RSS? | All Feeds


 

Current Issue
Doublethink :: Summer 2008





Politics & Prose

Ann Coulter’s Lesson on Good Attention vs. Bad Attention

by John Tabin | March 4, 2007
Article Tools
Post a Comment
E-mail this Article
Printer-Friendly Version
More in Politics & Prose

“I was going to have a few comments on the other Democratic presidential candidate, John Edwards, but it turns out you have to go into rehab if you use the word ‘faggot,’ so I — so kind of an impasse, can’t really talk about Edwards.”

So said Ann Coulter on Friday at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC). (She was alluding to Grey’s Anatomy star Isaiah Washington’s recent stint in residential therapy, Washington’s penance for a remark directed at a gay castmate.) It wasn’t the first time Coulter had used the CPAC stage to toss out an epithet; a year ago, she told the crowd that “I think our motto should be post-9-11, ‘raghead talks tough, raghead faces consequences.’” Her response to a young Muslim who rose during the question and answer session to point out that remarks like that make it hard to recruit other Muslims to the conservative movement? “Well, I make a couple jokes about Muslims, and they kill 3,000 Americans — fair trade.”

Why does Coulter say such despicable things? Simple: to shock people into noticing her. The word for a person who behaves that way is attention-whore. Sure enough, Coulter got her pile of cash left on the nightstand; the story of her latest slur appeared in hundreds of media outlets over the weekend, and campaign spokesmen for Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney, and John McCain all issued denunciations to distance themselves from her.

Though actual prostitution is arguably a victimless crime, Coulter’s attention-whoring is not. With the notable exception of McCain, every major candidate for the Republican presidential nomination spoke at CPAC, and Coulter’s lame joke created a headache-by-association for all of them — particularly for Romney, the candidate that Coulter claims to support. The only one who she actually helped was John Edwards, who turned Coulter’s attack into an effective fundraising pitch.

In short, the moral case against Coulter the attention-whore is infinitely stronger than the case against an actual whore. Does a street-walker deserve opprobrium? Those who say yes can give various reasons. Perhaps she’s degrading herself, perhaps even spreading disease among her customers. But people who aren’t even in the room when she’s doing her job will never catch a thing from her.

That Coulter is so successful does not speak well of the conservative movement. The seemingly-endless line for her book-signing after the CPAC speech is testament to an eagerness to get down in the mud that’s clearly widespread — particularly among college students, who get a deep discount for CPAC registration and therefore make up a large chunk of the crowd. But young conservatives take their cues from movement elders who are far too tolerant of Coulter’s shtick.

If CPAC organizers would like to better-tailor next year’s conference to the traditional values that so many attendees stand for, it wouldn’t be a bad idea to fire up Craigslist, head to the “erotic services” listings, and order a call girl or two to work the exhibit hall. It would be much classier than letting Coulter return.


John Tabin is a writer in Washington, DC.


11 Comments - add your own

David — March 7, 2007 at 8:12 pm

oh I like it

of course if attention whores were banned, who would speak and who would listen?

Rose — March 9, 2007 at 2:08 am

Yo! Cool stuff! Thanks for being here.

Chuck — March 9, 2007 at 1:21 pm

Hi people! Great job!

Kelly Gorski — March 9, 2007 at 4:23 pm

Ann Coulter has several insecurities with which she is trying to deal. There is no way she will be a good communicator until she overcomes those. Until she does, she’ll continue to utilize logical fallacies and jargon. It’s all she knows.

gordon — March 10, 2007 at 11:23 pm

john -
Agree a little about your Coulter observations, and will make no effort to defend her use of the other “F” word. My wife (a former liberal who still gets a little hyper when she can legitimately go after a conservative that has made a fool of him or herself) and I have frequently debated the Coulter style (and her style is rough), but overall, her analysis is spot on.
Not many Republican office holders (from Bush down) are willing to speak back to the numerous outrageous attacks by Democratic politicos, thus it almost by default requires right-of-center talkers and writers to do the answering. At least, that’s how I see it. Strangely, John Edwards exudes characteristics and a talking manner that have at times moved me
to pejoratively call him a pansy (I view his wealth as ill-gotten;
think his populist preaching is bogus; and his hiring of anti-Christian women (make that extreme over the top anti-Christian women) to help in his campaign, all conspire to illuminate his true character),
and to my surprise, as my wife and I looked up definitions of the other “F” word
(I was trying to find the Coulter version of what the other “F” word means), there was PANSY listed as a synonym for, gasp, the other “F” word. In effect, I too, have called John Edwards a ——.

Anonymous — May 17, 2007 at 10:08 pm

discourages glowing forgive Epsom pressuring packaged Renaults

Anonymous — May 17, 2007 at 10:09 pm

discourages glowing forgive Epsom pressuring packaged Renaults

Anonymous — May 24, 2007 at 9:17 pm

accelerated,deliverers abbreviations,thwarts newspapers .

Anonymous — May 28, 2007 at 9:14 am

Englewood fetid!theorizer muscling pseudonym yelling?substring!… Thanks!!!

Anonymous — May 28, 2007 at 9:16 am

matters Barbour.tonics,foggiest coupler!dominate versus!

Anonymous — May 28, 2007 at 11:52 am

clash?visual humidly incremental retentively … Thanks!!!