SLANDER,
CHAPTER 2: The Gucci Position on Domestic Policy
Commentary
by Stuart Eugene Thiel[1]
I
work my way through Chapter 2 of Slander,
concentrating mostly on the footnotes but offering observations on the text
material as well. I didn't check a few of the footnotes, for reasons explained
on a case-by-case basis: two or three books, a couple of minor newspapers, and
one string cite to 17 different articles in Harper's
whose accuracy I took for granted. The only unchecked cite that is really significant
is that Ms. Coulter (henceforth, "Ann") devotes much of the chapter
to Phyllis Schlafly, apparently drawing most of her information from a Schlafly
biography. I cannot attest, either way, to the accuracy of such details. I take
them at face value.
Pp
27 ff:
A
general comment: I found Slander's
thesis, that liberals are totally out of touch with truth, good government and
the American psyche, and malevolently so, somewhat easier to understand when I
decided "liberal" is really shorthand for rich liberals, particularly
in New York and Hollywood, of the type skewered by Tom Wolfe in "Radical
Chic" and by John Lindsay with the moniker "limousine liberals."
She even calls them the "jet set" (p. 32). I do not know if, in other
chapters, Ann turns her attack to other liberals. It strikes me that this
rhetorical device is not merely for convenience. I think it is an attempt to
subtly try to make the reader forget that most rich people are Republicans, and
that Republican doctrine has for a hundred years been almost totally focused on
the interests and agenda of the very wealthy. There is nothing per se wrong with this, and Republicans
have been very successful in persuading the voters that their interests
coincide with those of the rich. But Chapter 2, at least, of this book wants
you to believe that it is rich liberals that are your implacable enemy. In my
view, this is very false.
p.
28. "The left's ideal world is G.I. Jane showering while she chats with
her Navy SEAL commander who registers no response at the sight of a naked
woman."
Irony! G.I. Jane, of course, was played by Demi Moore,
reputed to be one of the most conservative women in show business. [Aside. I
don't know if anything like this scene appeared in the movie, but it did remind
me of a scene in "Starship Troopers" where the commander catches a couple
in flagrante and just laughs it off. The irony here is that the film was (loosely)
based on a book by Robert Heinlein, a hard-core libertarian (NOT liberal), who
did advocate using women as warriors in any capacity they could handle.]
p.
28. "[A]ll they're doing on the lowbrow channels is fornicating. Casts of entire
shows ought to have the clap by now."
A circumstance brought to you by the forces of the
free market (and predicted by, among others, Heinlein (e.g. the commercials for
birth-control pills in Stranger in a
Footnote
1. (pp. 28-29) Kakutani, "The Strange Case of the Writer and the
Criminal," NYT 9/20/81.
To support the general sentiment that
"liberals" (i.e. rich
Ann's version of the story of Jack Abbott goes well
beyond Kakutani's, suggesting that she has sources not cited. Ironically, Ann's
additional detail is correct. (Google [Adan Abbott]) Why would this be? Why
wouldn't she cite her sources, when they're correct? Possibly it's purely
Machiavellian, meant to discourage fools like me who would take on the duty of
cite-checking. I think it more probable that she is merely piggybacking on the
research of Dorothy Rabinowitz of the WSJ Opinion Journal, 2/17/2002, who took
the happy occasion of Abbott's suicide to make much the same argument as did Ann.
Rather than sully (pun intended) the name of the WSJ with such liberal bilge,
however, she lunged at this weak chance to tar the NYT, even though the Times'
behavior is not at issue.
p.
29. "[M]ore fancy high-priced lawyers jumped at the chance to represent [then-alleged]
American traitor John Walker [Lindh] -- free of charge—than would have touched
Paula Jones's case with a ten-foot pole."
No citation provided. Moreover, Paula Jones had no
damages, and anyone with common sense could have told you that the President of
the
p.
29. "[T]he leading Democrat[ic] argument against Bush's 2001 tax cut was to
demand to know how exactly it would help anyone. . . . To state the manifestly
obvious: People would have more money. That's an improvement right there. . . .
More money will give people more money. Isn't that the goal? What am I
missing?"
No citation provided. This is, IMHO, the most
egregious lie in the whole chapter. The response is obvious. True, some people
will have more money. But others lose the benefit of the government programs
that the money had funded. Therefore, the debate was over which use of the
money was better – spent privately, or publicly? It is absolutely inconceivable
that Ann does not know this. For her to pretend that she or anyone else ever
thought that the tax cut would be a totally free lunch, putting dollars in
peoples' pockets with no sacrifice anywhere, goes beyond disingenuous.
Footnote
2. (pp. 29-30) Kessler, "The Very Rich Pay Growing Tax Share," WP
3/15/01.
Ann devotes three paragraphs to the proposition,
"Really vicious liberals are constantly bragging that they love paying
taxes. . . .[T]he real point is to announce that they do not share the working
class's petty concern with taxes." (italics in original) She cites Kessler
to support the following: [B]illionaire music mogul David Geffen loudly
bragged, "Speaking for myself, I don't need a tax cut." He loved
paying taxes, he said, because it's "a privilege to be an American
citizen." This is pure braggadocio. . . . "I want to pay more taxes"
is a way of saying that, no matter how much the government takes, [one] will
still have enough money to keep drinking Dom Perignon and making out in the hot
tub.
Unfortunately for Ann's credibility, Geffen did not
say he loves to pay taxes, and was not "loudly bragging," at least
not in Kessler's article: "Speaking for myself, I don't need a tax cut or
tax relief," said David Geffen, the music mogul who has amassed a $3.3
billion fortune and is 70th on the Forbes 400 list of wealthiest Americans.
"It is a privilege to be an American citizen," he said. "It is
appropriate to pay a greater share of taxes."
On average, each of the 400 top taxpayers paid more
than $21 million in federal income taxes last year on income of more than $64
million, according to estimates based on the IRS data. [Former G.O.P.] Treasury
Secretary Paul H. O'Neill, who earned more than $60 million last year as
chairman of Alcoa Inc., may fall into this category this year. He said he
expects to pay about $24 million when he files his tax return in April, an
amount he considers appropriate. Geffen and O'Neill apparently agree that their
taxes are "appropriate." What's this about liberal braggadocio?
Speaking of braggadocio, here's Ann on the TV show
Booknotes, 8/11/02, loudly bragging about the cash she's raking in:
LAMB [the host]: How
many copies of High Crimes and Misdemeanors did you sell?
COULTER: About a quarter
million.
LAMB: That's a lot of
money.
COULTER: It's never
enough money. No, in fact someone just told me, I don't know if this is true,
that the median income for a writer in
Footnote
3. (p. 30) Editorial,
Ann's basic assertion, that owners of beachfront
mansions in
That said, Ann makes two logical errors in her quest
to place the blame on "liberals." First, she asserts that the
homeowners fighting public access are liberals. But only three of 100
homeowners were named. For all we know, Charlton Heston and Bruce Willis are
among the others. So it is erroneous to say that all of the homeowners in this
fight are liberals, or even celebrities. Is Geffen really a celebrity? Maybe.
The New York Times (mid-August 2002) identified philanthropist Wendy McGaw as
another homeowner in this fight. Is she a celebrity? She gives away a lot of
her money, but I'd never heard of her. From the article cited, all we really
know about any of these people is that they are rich.
On the flip, she asserts that all liberals are
fighting public access. But her own text, and the editorial she cites, point
out that the former head of the Malibu Democratic Club is among those seeking
public access. In fact, he is one of the leaders of the effort, to the extent
of heading a small group seeking funds to open a right of way on which it
gained an option. But he's a Democrat.
Why was Ann citing an editorial from a backwater
paper, anyway? Even in the early part of 2002, there were plenty of better
sources. Google ["
Footnote
4. (p. 31) "Twilight of the ERA Era; With Time Running Out, Women Rally
Round the Amendment," Time, 7/13/81.
Accurate quotation of Jules Feiffer that Reagan was
"making the world safe for white, male heterosexual millionaires."
The rest of the paragraph is unsupported rant.
Footnote
5. (p. 31) "Disney Executives Top Donors for Mrs. Clinton," NYT
2/25/00. Offered to support, "While the Democratic Party hauls in enormous
donations from
Fewer than half her assertions are supported by the
article she cites. The article names no donors, mentions no
Footnote
6. (p. 31) Van Natta, "The 2000 Campaign: The Fund-Raising," NYT
4/25/00; Warner, "Political Jousting," PBS 4/24/97. Cited to support,
". . . [T]he average donation to the Republicans is about fifty dollars.
For years, the [RNC] has proudly posted the size of its average donation and
tauntingly asked the Democrats to release theirs. . . . [The Democrats say] the
average donation constituted proprietary information."
The Democrats' reticence checks out. But in the Van
Natta piece, describing fat-cat fundraisers for both parties, an RNC official
says that their average donation is $55; in Warner's 1997 PBS TV show, it's
said to be "less than $50." So, apparently the Republicans' average
is rising. Honest citation would have gone with the more-recent number, or
mentioned both. Ann's "about fifty dollars" lowballs this average.
More important, Ann's main point is that the RNC is
proud of its numbers, but the DNC is not, proof positive that the Republican
Party is really the party of the little guy. Forget all the back-channel
methods of donation that make this a meaningless statistic in the first place.
Neither of Ann's sources says anything about the RNC's proud posting of their
average donation. Why not? The answer to this mystery lies in the RNC's web
site, conveniently not cited by Ann.
At the RNC link is a press release dated January 16,
2002, which does proudly post the RNC's average donation for 2001 and taunt the
Democrats for failing to follow suit. The RNC's average donation was $57.07, about
15% larger than what Ann tells us. It is clear from her Booknotes interview
that she was still working on the manuscript in January 2002. I'd bet money
that she saw the RNC press release, surfed a little on Lexis/Nexis, found
citations that allowed her to lowball the estimate, and just happened to omit a
citation to her actual source, the RNC link. This is a bright and shining lie.
Again, why did she lie about it? If she had written,
"the average donation to the Republicans is about fifty-seven dollars. . .
," citing the RNC's web page, would anyone have paused to think,
"Hey, that's pretty high, but if it was $50. . . ."
[Aside. The RNC's site gives the average donation, not
the average per donor. In fact, in 2001 the RNC got nearly twice as many donations
as it had donors. Well, obviously a lot of people give more than once. But they
may be using a trick that the Dems should consider. Somebody offers them $1000.
Instead of taking it in a lump sum, set up an automatic bill-pay with the
donor's bank or Yahoo! or PayPal (etc.) so the contribution comes out as 50
weekly donations of $20. Presto! Average donation $20, not $1000!!]
Footnotes
7, 8. (pp. 31-32) Keller, "The Roll Call 50 Richest," 1/15/2001. LINK
(FYI: the 2000 list; the 2002 list). Ann: "The most fabulously wealthy
Senators are invariably Democrats. . . . [If] Lincoln Chaffee (R-R.I.) ever
figures out that he is in the wrong party, nine out of the top eleven
[Senators] would be Democrats."
Some would call this noblesse oblige, but no matter.
It is true that the four Senators with the highest estimated net worth (Kerry
(D-Mass.), Corzine (D-N.J.), Kohl (D-Wisc.), Rockefeller (D-W.Va.)) are
Democrats. It is also true that Chaffee and eight Democrats constitute nine of
the top eleven (#11, Kennedy with $25 million, is apparently not
"fabulously wealthy.") (I wonder what [now-former Majority Leader] Trent
Lott thinks of Ann's desire to throw Chaffee out of the party?)
But it is also true that by choosing to list only
Senators, Ann was able to bypass #1 on the list, Representative Amory Houghton
(R-N.Y.), of whom Roll Call asked, "Congress's first billionaire?,"
estimating his wealth between $700 million and $1 billion. Also, of the 50
richest, 18 are Democrats, 32 are Republicans.
By 2002, one Democrat and one Republican on Roll
Call's list had died, and five Republicans fell off the list. All seven
newcomers to the list were Republicans, for a gain of one. Senator Maria
Cantwell (D-Wash.) famously suffered large losses in the dot-com crash, but I
could not verify Ann's assertion that she is "bankrupt." She fell
from #9 in 2001 to #24 in 2002.
Finally, of the five 9-figure net worth members of
Congress (Houghton and the four Dems listed above), only one (Rockefeller) does
not represent a state notable for concentrations of wealthy individuals and
families. As it happens, such states tend to be Democratic or "Gore"
states, rendering less surprising the fact that they have elected wealthy
Democrats. This observation is entirely consistent with the idea that these
wealthy Senators are Democrats first, and wealthy second.
Footnote
9. (p. 32) Id. "Republican
multimillionaires are also more likely to have earned their money than to have
married it."
Let's assume that she means Republican multimillionaires
in the Congress. It is true that of the Roll Call 50 richest, 9 married money;
6 Democrats (Tauscher, Pelosi, Lowey, Feinstein, Harman, Kerry) and 3
Republicans (Chaffee, Warner, McCain). However, of the Democrats' six gold-diggers,
only one (Kerry) is a man. All of the three Republican gold-diggers are men. (I
think that this is an important distinction. Feel free to disagree.)
As to "earning it," if Roll Call did not
mention family or spouse as being the source, let's call the wealth
"self-made." In January 2001 there were 20 such Republicans, and only
9 Democrats. However, of the top six (Corzine, Cantwell, Bennett, Edwards,
Sisisky, Goss), four are Democrats. Apparently Democrats are the better at
striking it really rich (as opposed to making a few million in a couple of real
estate deals). That contradicts the conventional wisdom, but there it is.
Mendacity Watch: In her footnote, Ann compares
Bennett, with his self-made $30 million (selling "motivational
materials"), favorably to Kerry, who married into the Heinz fortune.
Cantwell and Edwards would be much closer matches to Bennett – self-made, with
roughly comparable net worth. But then she would have had to laud either
Cantwell's Internet-based wealth, or (oh, NO!) Edwards, the plaintiffs' lawyer.
Similarly, war hero and putative gold-digger Kerry would have been more closely
comparable to war hero and putative gold-digger McCain.
Footnote
10. (p. 32) Levin, "Maker of Documentary that Attacks G.M. Alienates His Allies,"
NYT 1/19/90. The citation is not to the "caustic review in the New Yorker"
of Michael Moore's film "Roger and Me," but to a NYT article quoting said
review (by Pauline Kael). Ann accurately quotes Levin quoting Kael (I did not
check the New Yorker).
Ann's claim that the UAW "denounced" the
film is a little strong, but IMHO within the bounds of fair play. None of Ann's
other assertions in this paragraph – that Moore is a "college dropout and working-class
phony," that rich liberals who enjoy jeering at the working class loved
the film, that the left "reveres" Moore-- is supported by the
citation. (I have no particular reason to doubt many of her factual claims, e.g., that Moore dropped out of college.
But Ann is the one who chose footnotes as the weapon for this duel. No
footnote, no support.)
What's peculiar is that she is quoting the NYT quoting
the New Yorker's "caustic"
review to advance her thesis that rich liberals enjoy jeering at desperate
working-class folks. The NYT and the New
Yorker are the very models of the liberals she despises. Yet here is
Pauline Kael (why is she not named in the text? She's certainly famous and
weighty enough.) slamming Moore's movie, and the NYT publishing a piece
detailing the unions' and the Naderites' beefs against Moore as well as against
his movie. Did neither Ann nor her editors notice that they are contradicting
the very point they are trying to make?
Footnote
11-13. (p. 32) Ellul, Propaganda: The Formation of Men's Attitudes (1965), p. 166.
Not checked, but the quotations are perfectly plausible
(propaganda gives "a set of prejudices and beliefs, as well as objective
justifications."). In fact, it may be standard issue by the vast Right
wing conspiracy as a text for shock troops like Rush Limbaugh or Jim Baker:
"Any statement whatever, no matter how stupid, any 'tall tale' will be
believed once it enters into the passionate current of hatred." (Slander, p. 33) The entire passage about
propaganda, pp 32-33, strikes me as describing the Right's ongoing efforts at
indoctrination much better than the Left's feeble efforts in that direction.
Democrats may do well to read this book.
Footnote
14. (p. 33) Hamilton, "The People's Pornographer [Larry Flynt]," New
Times Los Angeles, 10/24/96. Offered to support Ann's assertion that Larry Flynt
never finished grade school, as she prepares to lambaste him for having the
temerity to call George W. Bush "the dumbest president we have ever
had."
Here is Hamilton:
[Flynt] ran away for the
first time at age 13 and never finished grade school. At 15, he lied about his
age and joined the Army, where he earned a his high school equivalency
certificate.
Ann is correct, with the usual reservation that she
leaves out the inconvenient part. Flynt grew up as poor Kentucky rural white
trash and he never finished grade school. But he did serve in the Army and earn
a G.E.D. G.E.D. doesn't sound like much but it's a heck of a lot better than
"never finished grade school." A lot of us reflexively admire people
who slog through night school, or whatever, trying to make up for lost
educational time. And, Flynt joined the Army as a buck Private. No one bought
him a place in flight school.
Moreover, the whole article paints Flynt as a shrewd,
successful businessman, albeit in a tawdry business. Maybe he should have
waited for someone to set him up in the oil business. Everything we know about
the business career of George W. Bush demonstrates that he, despite Yale,
Harvard Business School, and gold-plated connections, was anything but a
shrewd, successful businessman.
Flynt's assertion that Bush is the "dumbest
president we have ever had," may be false (Harding and possibly one or two
others may have been dumber), but there is little justification in questioning
Flynt's credentials for that opinion.
And, of course, Ann is being inconsistent and just
plain stupid. Just above this denigration of Flynt, she says, "A lot of
people who went to Southwest Texas Junior College are shrewder than Yale
graduates." What was the woman thinking? Was she thinking at all when she
wrote that sentence? Here she is, trying to convince us that self-made man Flynt
is unfit to criticize the son of Eli, George Walker Bush, and she uses an
example where some hypothetical Joe Schmo is shrewder than a hypothetical Yale
graduate. She could at least have used a Harvard man for her example. In any
event, Flynt, without even the benefit of STJC (which exists), fills the bill.
Footnote
15. (p. 34) Balmer, "Porn King Flynt Seeks Dirt on President Bush,"
Yahoo News (Reuters) 5/16/01.
Ann correctly quotes the article as quoting Flynt,
"[Bush] is the dumbest president we've ever had." [Aside. Let's not
forget that Flynt was behind one of the more comical episodes in recent G.O.P.
history when he threatened to reveal sexual secrets of prominent Republicans
and provoked Bob Livingston, Henry Hyde, and (as I recall, I did not look this
up) one or two others to come clean about past affairs. Shrewd?]
Footnote
16. (p. 34) Johnson, "Hollywood Should Clean Up Its Act, Says Actor Sheen:
'West Wing' Star Rallies Democrats on Dayton Visit," Columbus Dispatch
9/24/00.
Ann quotes Martin Sheen correctly as saying he
"intentionally" flunked the entrance exam for the University of
Dayton. (Sheen also said he scored 3 points out of 100, which if true would be
difficult to do except intentionally.) Ann also writes: "[Sheen] said Bush
is 'a moron, if you'll pardon the expression.' (Strictly speaking, 'moron' is a
word, not an expression.)" Sheen did say that, although Ann does not
bother to provide a citation.
To corroborate, Google ["martin sheen" moron
bush]. You will learn that Sheen, a mix of Irish- and Mexican-American whose
real surname is Estevez, managed to succeed without college, not even the
University of Dayton. He is the third uneducated-but-successful person in a row
(Moore, Flynt, Sheen) criticized by Ann for having the temerity to think that
Bush is a dope. Well, as I see it, all three earned that right, if such a right
has to be earned. For all his education, Bush has prospered only when his name,
connections and wealth have overcome his natural fecklessness and carried him
along.
Ann also gives us a priceless Coulterism when she
chastens Sheen for calling "moron" an expression. As if she and her
fellow travellers are sticklers for correct grammar: Neal Boortz, Newsmax,
12/10/01 (sniggering item about a Filipino who cut off his penis to stop
himself from sinning; "family members (pardon the expression). . . ";
Dr. Laura, Jewish World Review, 5/9/01 ("she won't let the matter rest
with such an equivocal, gutless response from the school 'authority' (you
should pardon the expression)). Anyway, as someone wrote to tell me, words are
expressions. For that matter, pardon my French, but, "Bush is a
moron," is an expression. So is "Ann ought to stick to her fields of expertise
(if any) and keep mum about technical grammatical points."
Footnotes
17, 19-20. (p. 34). Hamilton, The People's Pornographer, (op.cit. fn. 14)
Ann's references to the article, and her
interpretation of its tone as favoring Flynt, are correct. One small
discrepancy: the poster of Flynt being crucified was apparently never released
to public view. Also, Ann notes that the movie title "The People vs. Larry
Flynt" is a misnomer. Falwell v. Flynt
was a tort case, in which Falwell sought damages for emotional distress. (A
tort claim normally decried by conservatives.) This from the woman -- a lawyer,
no less--who writes a book alleging libel and calls the book Slander. [April
2006. I have since learned that Slander was the publisher's choice. I wonder what Ann wanted?]
Footnote
18. (p. 34). Horn, Larry Flynt's Return Is an Attempt to Return Cincinnati to the
Past. He Came Back with the Intent of Lowering our Community Standards, Cincinnati
Enquirer, 5/2/99.
This article is posted on the Web under the title, "Cincinnati
vs. Flynt: The Sequel. Then and now, the opponents are intertwined, defining
each other's reputations." The title given in Ann's footnote, "Larry Flynt's
Return. . . " is in the article. It is a quotation from a member of Cincinnati's
"Citizens for Community Values," who also called Flynt a "sleaze
vendor." I don't see the leverage in grafting this anti-Flynt title onto
an article Ann criticizes for lauding Flynt. Either a simple mistake,
demonstrating her deep concern with the accuracy of her precious footnotes, or
she's lying just for the hell of it. Neither does much for her credibility.
Footnotes
21-23, 25. (p. 35-36) Felsenthal, Phyllis Schlafly: The Sweetheart of the
Silent Majority (Regnery 1982).
I did not read this book, but note that it is a
Regnery production. 'Nuff said. Ann appears to use it extensively to support
her argument that Schlafly, one of the great thinkers of the age, is unfairly snubbed
by the liberal [sic] media, who
prefer to quote airheaded starlets or Gloria Steinem. She devotes several pages
to comparing Schlafly to Steinem.
Even if we take everything Ann says about Schlafly at
face value, I'm still not convinced she's one of the great minds of the 20th
Century, or even of the 19th Century. The woman is a crank and has always been
a crank. OK, she's a crank who got good grades in college, a scholarship to
graduate school and went to law school in her middle age. She has several times
helped to write planks for the GOP party platform, a task reserved for party
hacks. She's apparently written 10 books, mostly on military policy, but Ann's
thumbnail sketch gives absolutely no indication that she (Schlafly) has any
expertise on the subject except that while in college she had a job test-firing
machine guns. She wrote "an eight-hundred page vivisection of Henry
Kissinger and his policy of detente." (p. 35) Who would publish such a
book? Who would buy it? I have heard of her Goldwater manifesto, A Choice Not
An Echo. You can find it in a brittle, cheap paperback at just about any thrift
store. Who bought those 3 million copies, and at what price? Did she get a
little (+) (signifying bulk buys) by her name in the NYT best-seller list?
Schlafly has solid accomplishments – she was a player
in the counterattack of the Right wing in the Goldwater era, and was
instrumental in defeating the ERA (although as I remember it, the ERA had
pretty much run out of steam without her help). But overall, I think the
history of the postwar Right can safely relegate her to a footnote.
Footnote
24. Gilder, Men and Marriage (Pelican 1987). Book: not checked, supports a
minor compliment paid by Gilder to Schlafly.
p.
36. In the middle of Ann's discussion of Schlafly's battle against the ERA is an
assertion that law professors picked up Schlafly's reading of the ERA as mandating
that women be drafted and wrote about it in prestigious law reviews like the Yale Law Journal. Of course there are
articles about the effect of ERA on the draft, but did Schlafly really
originate the concept? Apparently she headed an anti-ERA group called the
Coalition Against Drafting Women when the ERA was before the Senate, but it
seems to me that this possibility was obvious. A statement like this is just
screaming for a citation, to the article Ann had seen in the YLJ, at least. Did
it mention Schlafly? Ann went to an excellent law school and has access to
Lexis-Nexis. This should have been child's play. Nada.
Footnote
26. (p. 36) Updike, Is Sex Necessary?: A History of the Revolution, New Yorker 2/21/00.
Ann gets the quotation, saying Schlafly led the
"counter-revolution" against the ERA, correct. Updike is reviewing a
book by historian David Allyn; it is not clear from the article whether it was
actually Allyn who credits Schlafly with defeating the ERA, but Updike clearly
concurs.
Why did she reach for a quotation from John Updike,
novelist, in February 2000, about political infighting in the 1970s? Surely
there is a better quotation, from someone closer to the action. Answer: because
her footnotes are not integral to persuasion, they're just frosting on the
cake. Very thin frosting.
Footnote
27. (pp. 37-38) Onward, Women!, Time, 12/4/89.
Not read. However, the quotation from the article that
Ann uses (in the footnote) is exactly what is given in the blurb on Time's
archive page. I could not verify the quotation used near the top of p. 38. This
follows a page or so of unsupported assertions regarding Phyllis Schlafly and
Gloria Steinem, including the statement, "The feminist movement failed."
Huh? The feminist movement may have run out of steam, but that is what movements
do. The Reagan/Gingrich conservative movement ran out of gas in about 1995;
would Ann say it failed? Ann writes that Phyllis Schlafly was so smart that the
Harvard Law faculty was prepared to admit her despite a policy banning women
(p. 35). Ann faced no such obstacles on her way to Michigan Law. Did the feminist
movement fail her? Should she be thanking Schlafly, or Steinem?
p.
38. "Steinem's life would seem to be the opposite of a feminist success story,
if feminists consider it desirable for women to be judged by their accomplishments
and not their looks or the men they acquire." IMHO, one of Steinem's most
important contributions to the women's movement was to show that you didn't
have to sacrifice being attractive to join.
More to the point, Ann is using a routine polemical
trick: "I'll define your goals and ethics, and then criticize you for not
living up to them." I have always thought feminism to be about equal
opportunity vis-a-vis men's opportunities, not about judging a woman for what
she does with that opportunity. Ann goes on to imply that Steinem used her
feminine wiles to charm over a million dollars for Ms. Magazine out of Mort Zuckerman. Assume, for argument's sake,
this is true. What does it have to do with feminism? Feminism helped to put
Steinem in the position where she had an ailing magazine to save. What she did
to save it is about her behavior, not about feminism. Somehow, I think Ann
knows this. But her way permitted her to include the juicy, salacious story of
Steinem and Zuckerman (minus a few details).
Footnotes
28, 30, 32. (p 38) After the Storm; Free from Silence: Ms. Steinem, ABC News Primetime
Live, 1/23/92.
Accurate quotations from the transcript of Steinem's appearance
on Primetime Live.
Footnote
29. (p. 38) Smith, A Contretemps over Mort, Newsday 12/17/91.
Apparently Steinem was quoted in Vanity Fair as saying
that her one-time lover, Mort Zuckerman, had never given any money to Ms. Magazine. Zuckerman had lent the
magazine $700,000 and given about $400,000, as well as lending one of his
executives to help overhaul Ms, facts
Zuckerman lost no time in telling everyone.
Nobody looks good in this "contretemps,"
certainly not Steinem. Ann (correctly) says that Steinem told Primetime Live
that she did not love Zuckerman. (Although she omits the context—this was long
after the couple had broken up. Most of us have said, or have a friend who has
said, something similar.)
Ann apparently intends to leave the impression that
Steinem is a hypocrite and a whore. But she overplays her hand. Below is the
entire passage from Smith's article; the italicized portion is that omitted by Ann:
Not only did Zuckerman
lend Ms. $700,000, but he has check stubs that show $406,151 in gifts to the
magazine and its foundation. Ms.
repaid the loan to Zuckerman with interest. The publisher also sent one of his
own top executives to spend two weeks trying to overhaul the magazine.
Pardon my French, but here Ms. Ann H. Coulter is
caught avec les mains rouges. The
omission of the repayment was careful and deliberate. It lets her pretend that
Zuckerman's gifts were nearly 3 times their actual size. To be sure, Zuckerman
had been very generous. But why stop at insinuating that Steinem was a $400,000
whore when you can jack the insinuation up to $1.1 million?
It gets worse. As the contretemps boiled over, Liz
Smith wrote a second item, not cited by Ann, in which she states that Zuckerman
had not loaned the $700,000 to Ms.
Magazine; he had "made it possible" for Ms. to borrow that sum from a bank (I guess by cosigning or
guaranteeing the loan). Smith, "The Truth about Mort," Newsday, 1/12/1992. The $700,000
"gift" is looking weaker and weaker. Ann cannot have been unaware of
this second item. But she saw to it that her readers were not aware of it.
Ann (p. 38) goes on to say:
The point [of Smith's
article] was not to prove Steinem had succeeded on her own, but precisely the
opposite; to prove that she had batted her eyes and inveigled a man to save her
failing business enterprise.
First, that is a false statement about Smith's point.
Smith stated (in the December item) that as an admirer of Steinem, who knew
that Zuckerman had provided large sums to Ms.
Magazine, she wished to set the record straight. Smith had absolutely no
intent of proving Steinem had succeeded on her own, only that for some reason, Vanity Fair quoted Steinem as lying
about Zuckerman, and she (Smith) wanted to help clear things up.
Second, Ann is holding Ms. Magazine up to a false standard. Ms. Magazine was, from the very beginning, primarily a political
statement and tool for consciousness-raising. Sort of like the American Spectator. Magazines of opinion,
Left and Right, are generally propped up by fat cats. They have 'way too much
gray stuff around the advertising for them to turn a profit. Ann knows this
first-hand. What does she do to keep the funds flowing from Richard Mellon Scaife?
I doubt that her methods are directly sexual, but I'd bet that sometimes they
are of iffy ethics. Like, perhaps, various degrees of lying to discredit liberals
and liberal positions.
p.
38. The exaltation of Schlafly over Steinem includes the following:
While Schlafly was
writing about military policy, getting presidential candidates nominated, drafting
Republican platforms, and raising six children, Steinem was writing a book
about self-esteem. . .
On its face, this is absurd. Ann counts Schlafly's
lifetime accomplishments and sets them against one book by Steinem. In fact,
Steinem has written 4 or 5 books, some of which, like Outrageous Acts and Everyday Rebellions, were legitimate best
sellers; founded a pathbreaking magazine; and served as something of an icon
for two generations of feminists. At worst, she's a rough equal of Schlafly
(even Ann calls Steinem the "feminist counterpart" of Schlafly (p.
37)). 50 years from now, Schlafly will be known (as a crank) to a few students
of history, sort of like Frances Willard, another gifted crank, who founded the
WCTU. Steinem will be hailed as a pioneer of women's equality.
p.
39. Ann gives us a quotation, correctly, with no footnote: [A]rticles. . .
chirp that Steinem is "also attempting a career in screenwriting, getting
involved with such projects as a caper movie, the screen translation of her book,
and a new, noncartoon version of Wonder Woman." The citation should be,
Langway, et al., "Steinem at 50: Gloria in Excelsis," Newsweek,
6/4/1984.
The article is a brief account of Steinem's 50th
birthday party, and while it is friendly to Steinem, it does not gush. Phyllis
Schlafly even makes an appearance (although she seems not to have been to the
party), agreeing with Betty Friedan that Steinem's version of feminism is a
minority view. I do not see any reason for Ann to have omitted this citation. Probably
just a mistake. Of course, I don't see how the quotation does much to help
prove liberals are seditious twits, either. You miss a lot when you think about
what you're reading.
Footnote
31. (p. 38) 1936-1986 Year by Year; An Almanac of Victories, Disasters, Heroes and
Hurrahs, Time, Fall 1986. Among the "heroes" to Time: Churchill,
Eisenhower, Mother Teresa. . . and Steinem.
Ann omits some of Time's other "heroes:" Hopalong
Cassidy, James Dean, Elvis, Sir Francis Chichester, Joe Namath, Martha Mitchell,
Bruce Jenner, and E.T. The whole thing is just a lame attempt to market Time's
archival material in time for Christmas. Sally Ride (who did attend Steinem's
50th birthday party) is on this list: does she owe her opportunities more to
Schlafly, or to Steinem?
Footnote
32. (p. 39) Steinem did say, "We [women] enjoy looking at men's
asses." The whole transcript of Primetime Live suggests a show where the
hosts were actively trying to trick Steinem into embarrassing herself. If that
was their goal, they succeeded. But why did Ann deem this so important? Ann has
said her share of stupid things on television. Indeed, it's an important part
of her schtick.
p.
39. ABC News Special Report, "A Celebration: 100 Years of Great
Women," (1999). Not footnoted, but this source is given in the running
text.
Unimportant except that Ann thought it worth remarking
that Barbara Walters was "fawning over" Steinem. Barbara Walters
fawns over everybody; at least, everybody she interviews. How long has it been
since Walters asked anyone a tough question? Ann goes on to say "an
actress's surest route to an Academy Award nomination is to play a
prostitute," listing seven such recent prostitute roles. This is a minor
item of ongoing public conversation (of which I was unaware). No citation provided.
Apparently Ann thinks this is a violation of the feminist code.
Ann then makes the bogus comparison of current "female
divas" Britney Spears, Madonna, Pamela Anderson, Elizabeth Hurley, Sarah Jessica
Parker and Jenny McCarthy to bygone movie stars Sophia Loren, Grace Kelly,
Lauren Bacall, Carole Lombard, Audrey Hepburn. Talk about apples and oranges!
Of the modern group, only Parker is even primarily an actress, and only Madonna
has any evident talent. The rest are in the ancient business of posing for
cheesecake pictures while doing their best to sing, dance, and/or act. A fairer
comparison to Britney, et al. might be to Jane Russell, Jayne Mansfield, Betty
Grable and Annette Funicello.
Footnote
33. (p. 40) Salter, Conservative Matriarch Schlafly Tries to Remain Relevant on
the Right, Chicago Tribune 8/1/96. Cited by Ann to support, "Schlafly is preposterously
demeaned with articles reporting that she is trying to remain 'relevant.'"
In the article, a member of Republicans for Choice
says Schlafly is "irrelevant;" GOP consultant Kevin Phillips
expresses surprise that she is still around, and, most telling, she has been
shut out of inner circle powwows because of her support for Pat Buchanan over
the soon-to-be nominee, Bob Dole. These are all Republicans saying she's
irrelevant, not liberals or journalists. Salter seems to admire her.
Footnotes
34. (p. 41) "The Attack Machine," New York Times Magazine, 11/12/95.
Described by Ann as a denunciation of Schlafly.
This article is not about Schlafly. It is merely a
list of hard-core Right wing smear operations and individuals, including many
of the usual suspects – The American Spectator, Paul Weyrich, Jesse Helms,
David Brock (before his recent conversion), The WSJ Editorialists, etc., etc.
It's a little surprising that Ann would consider inclusion in such company a
"denuciation." Schlafly as an individual doesn't even make the list –
it's the Eagle Forum.
Also, Ann accuses the NYT of spending two decades
"smearing and slighting" Schlafly. My search of the Lexis-Nexis NYT
database yielded 268 hits for "schlafly w/2 phyllis" in the two
decades preceding 11/12/95; an average of over one a month. Schlafly may have
been smeared by the NYT – I did not read these articles – but she was hardly slighted.
Footnote
35. (p 40). Haller, "The Muppets Take Manhattan," People, 7/16/84.
Ann thinks People Magazine uses "harridan"
as a synonym for Schlafly. Here's the full quotation, you decide:
[T]he Divine Miss
P[iggy]'s persona has taken a turn for the wurst. The wily '80s professional
woman has been transformed into a '50s harridan who first and foremost will do
anything to trick her fella – or, rather, frog – into marriage. It's like
turning Joan Collins into Phyllis Schlafly, and it isn't very funny.
Footnote
36. (p. 40) McMurran, "Harlan Ellison: Scarred by the Insults of
Childhood, a Manic Fantasist Slashes Back at the World," People, 12/2/85.
Cited to support, "One People Magazine article snickeringly described a
Los Angeles mountainside home that featured 'six fiberglass gargoyles
depicting, among others, Richard Nixon and Phyllis Schlafly.'"
The quotation is accurate, but (guess what?) it is misleading
without its context. The article has nothing to do with either Nixon nor
Schlafly. It is about Harlan Ellison, the science fiction writer, described by
People as "manic," and living up to that description by the things he
says and does in the article. The article may be "snickering," but it
is not snickering at Schlafly (unless Ann thinks she suffers by association
with Nixon). It's just another bemused look at guy of modest fame doing unusual
and eccentric things. Routine People Magazine stuff. Except for her appearance
as a gargoyle, Schlafly is totally irrelevant to Ellison.
Footnote
37. (p. 40) Wilhelm, "San Francisco's No. 1 Nun in Drag, Sister Boom Boom,
Tries Out a New Habit: Marriage to (Gasp!) a Woman," People, 10/7/85.
Cited to support, "In a profile of drag queen Sister Boom Boom, People
gleefully noted that Sister Boom Boom had 'mocked Phyllis Schlafly and Jerry
Falwell.'"
Again, misleading without its context, and inaccurate
to boot. In fact, the article tells us that Sister Boom Boom is a member of a
street troupe promoting gay and feminist rights, Sisters of Perpetual
Indulgence, which in 1984 sought to exorcise San Francisco of Moral Majority
demons, there mocking Schlafly and Falwell.
First, the article does not describe Sister B-B's role
in the exorcism, so we don't know if she was a Schlafly mocker or not. Further,
by Ann's own account, by 1984 Schlafly was best known as instrumental in the
defeat of the ERA, so it is only natural that she be mocked by feminist street
artists. It's the down side of fame, especially of fame that grows out of being
controversial, as Ann should understand well. Finally, I did not notice any
particular "glee" in the description of the mockery of Schlafly. It
was just another in a string of odd things Sister B-B had done.
Footnote
38. (p. 40). Haller, "If Papa Won't Preach It, Young Ron Reagan Will, with
a TV Pitch Promoting Safe Sex," People 7/13/87. Quote from Ron, Jr.:
"Getting flak from the likes of Phyllis Schlafly is an honor. . . "
The quotation is accurate, but the point of the
article is that Ron, Jr. is defying some of his father's political allies by
promoting AIDS awareness. Ron also says he thinks William Bennett "lacks a
conscience." In any event, it's legitimate news in anybody's book when the
offspring of the President appears in TV commercials advocating a policy
fervently opposed by some of that President's key constituencies. People's
reporter talked to Ron, Jr., who said the quotation. What was People supposed
to do? Censor itself? On what ground?
Footnote
39. (p. 40) Fineman, "Among the Believers," Newsweek 7/26/99.
Account of the Right-wing "movement"
conservatives' suspicion of the rise of George W. Bush. Fineman writes:
"The perception at the grass roots is that the fix is in, fumed Phyllis
Schlafly, a founding mother of the New Right." What on earth is the matter
with that? By her lights, she has plenty of reason to be mad, she is mad, and
Fineman reports it as such.
Footnote
40. (p. 40) Footlick, et al., "Legal Battle of the Sexes," Newsweek
4/30/79.
Accurate quotation in which Schlafly
"snaps." Ann finds the word disrespectful. It even rates a
"[sic]" in the footnote.
Note also that between the two Newsweek quotes, Ann accuses the NYT of writing something like
"Schlafly. . . 'opens her mouth.'" A Lexis/Nexis search on (schlafly
or phyllis) and (open* w/3 mouth) turned up no hits. What makes this interesting,
IMHO, is that it is nestled in between the two Newsweek quotes, inviting the inference that this NYT offense is
cited in footnote 40. It is not.
Footnote
41. (p. 41) O'Reilly, "And Ladies of the Club; Women in Dallas Showed
Signs of Comfort, and Discomfort," Time 9/3/84.
In which, "Time magazine sarcastically portrayed
women attending a Phyllis Schlafly luncheon at the 1984 Republican National
Convention for imagining that they were the 'mainstream.'" Huh? I suppose
this makes sense, but sentences like this make Ann's departure from legal
practice easier to understand, and probably overdue.
Anyway, the article describes an old-school ladies'
luncheon given by Phyllis Schlafly at the 1984 GOP Convention. A woman,
identified by Ann as a "Texas delegate" (the article says she was an
alternate from California) says, "It amazes me that people would think
this is not a cross section of the American public" -- a ballroom full of
"overwhelmingly white, conservative, married women whose greatest mark of
diversity was whether they wore silk or synthetic." One hopes the lady was
being facetious. Ann finds Time's
attitude to such a woman offensive.
Ann fails to mention that the entertainment Schlafly
booked for this particular luncheon included the ever-tasteful and hilarious
Joan Rivers, who suggested that the Democrats "should have gone for Dolly
Parton [for vice president]. They could have called it Fritz and Tits. They
would have had three boobs in the White House." (I remember hearing this
line, over and over, in 1984. I often wondered what Dolly Parton thought of it.
Is she even a Democrat?) Perhaps this is just another sign of Time's insidious
sarcasm. A better-behaved magazine would have left Joan Rivers out of it.
Ann tells us that another indicator of Schlafly's good
taste and serious purpose was [one of] the party favor[s]: General Daniel
Graham's book, We Must Defend America, apparently extolling the virtues of the
Star Wars missile defense system. (Doing her part to prop up yet another Right
wing tract as a "best seller.") For some reason, Ann forgot to
mention the other party favor, cakes of soap molded into the shape of Texas.
Footnote
42. (p. 41-42) Roberts, "For a Good Time, Call the Democrats," St.
Petersburg Times, 8/20/00.
Fast forward to the Democratic Convention of 2000, in
Los Angeles. According to Ann, "At the Democratic National Convention
event attended by Steinem, the party favors were condoms."
The article did indeed report on such a party, and
mentioned that Steinem had attended. However, my searches with Google and
Lexis-Nexis failed to corroborate this account. The host was reportedly People
for the American Way.
Four observations: 1) my searches revealed no other
party where the party favors were condoms. I found nothing even risque, although a key-word search
featuring "condom" would probably miss a lot. Apparently another
pro-choice group was handing out condoms in the convention lobby, which strikes
me as perfectly appropriate and on-message. But not as party favors. Is that
what you inferred from Ann's sentence? 2) The tone of the St. Pete's Times
article is every bit as sniggering and sarcastic as that of the Time article
about Phyllis Schlafly's ladies' luncheon. 3) Misdirection alert I: Steinem,
unlike Schlafly, was merely a guest at this affair, and as such cannot be
blamed for the hosts' taste or lack thereof. 4) Misdirection alert II: The two
parties were not only worlds apart, but were 16 years apart. Those years had
seen an explosion in AIDS, as well as lesser venereal diseases, which condoms
help to reduce. Condoms have gone mainstream, migrating from behind the
pharmacist's counter to prominent display on store shelves. They're not just
for teenagers any more.
Besides, condoms are probably a good thing to be
handing out at conventions. Even GOP Conventions.
p.
41. Long diatribe against Glamour Magazine for making Hillary Clinton its 1992
"Woman of the Year," but "never" choosing "anyone who
might possibly have voted for Ronald Reagan" as WOTY. Elizabeth Dole, WOTY
1997, ruins her "never."
But does Glamour snub Republican women generally? I
don't know. A Google search showed WOTY honors for GOP Congresswomen Susan
Molinari (R-N.Y.) and Connie Morella (R-Md.). Most of the WOTY were
entertainers, athletes, scholars or doctors whose politics were not readily
apparent. So, call it "not supported." If Ann wants us to believe
her, she has to back it up.
Footnote
43. (p. 41) "Yearenders, Predictions: A Sampler," The Hotline,
01/04/93. The quotation, [Rush Limbaugh] is "on the outs. . . " by
Larry King is accurate, even if the prediction was not. (Although King seemed
to include Schlafly in that prediction, putting him at .500.) King did not say
that Rush and Schlafly would be taking a "back seat" in 1993. I do
not know the source of that comment.
Footnote
44. (p. 41) "Phil McCombs, (whom Limbaugh ridiculed in 1994) "Review
of Saturday Night Live writer Al Franken's book Rush Limbaugh Is a Big Fat Idiot and Other Observations,"
Washington Post, January 19 Style section, December 16, 1996."
This is the exact footnote provided by Ann. She cites
it to support how the Post "giddily" quoted a restauranteur as
saying, "Limbaugh 'is fading right now' in popularity."
I did find this article: McCombs, "Al & the
Rushmeister," Washington Post "Style" section, January 19, 1996.
So, except for the title and the date, it's a good citation. The restauranteur
is there; he had shut down a "Rush Room" (a room where people hang
out, probably drinking Coors, grooving on Rush Limbaugh broadcasts) because
"Limbaugh 'is fading right now' in popularity among the restaurant's
patrons." Kinda different from just "fading in popularity,"
dontcha think?
This is particularly risible because as a doctrinaire
Ayn Randy, Ann is supposed to revere the decisions made by just such entrepreneurs
as the little synapses that make the Invisible Hand twitch. But not,
apparently, if they contradict her grander purpose of maligning liberals.[2]
Footnote
45. (p. 41) Bracey, "The Sixth Bracey Report on the Condition of Public Education,"
Phi Delta Kappan, 10/96.
This is an interesting article, similar in spirit to
this web site, devoted to calling attention to the worst errors and lies about
public schools in media, advertising, and so on. Ann's assertion that Bracey
gave Rush Limbaugh the "Least Credible Article" award in the previous
year is correct. But there is not indication that Bracey is picking on Rush; he
is, quite clearly and properly, trying to defend his profession against an onslaught
of muddled thinking and propaganda. More power to him.
Footnote
46. (p. 42) Edel, "Imus is Dropping Old Routine," Bergen County
Record, 3/30/97. Not found, but not particularly important.
Footnote
47. (p. 42) Cites to seventeen articles or editorials in Harpers Magazine by Lewis
Lapham, the editor, which Ann claims include "snotty asides" about
Rush Limbaugh. Not checked. But it is interesting to note that Ann complains
about how the media is ignoring Mr. Limbaugh, but that Lapham is
"absolutely obsessed" with him.
Footnote
48. (p. 42) Rutenberg, "Koppel's 'Nightline' Caught in Cross-Fire,"
NYT 03/04/02; "Business Digest," NYT 03/04/02.
The descriptions of Ted Koppel’s “Nightline” as
“quality news,” and “admired” are correct. But there is a certain amount of low
comedy in Ann’s handling of the Koppel/Letterman story. She says that
“Nightline” was due to be scrapped “because of its low ratings.” This is false.
The show actually had good ratings, better than Letterman’s. The problem was
that Koppel’s viewers tend to be older than the free-spending 20-somethings advertisers
love.
Even more telling of Ann’s passion for accuracy is
that she alludes to a “series of lengthy elegies,” in the NYT, then cites two
articles, both in the same edition of the paper. What’s more, her citation to
“Business Digest” is not only not lengthy, but is merely a quick synopsis of a
full-length article (about Letterman, really) on the inside pages of the
business section. I'm guessing that the reason she did not cite the actual
article is that she didn't read it – she was just shopping Lexis/Nexis looking
for ballast for her footnotes.
Footnote
49-53. (p. 42) Sanger, "The 2000 Campaign: World Views," NYT
10/30/00.
Ann correctly cites the NYT, and Jonathan Alter of Newsweek, as saying that candidate
George W. Bush had traveled only to Mexico and five other countries. Ann cites
this to serve her theory of liberal snobbery -– “How many Americans consider
[Bush’s travels] laughable?” The point, of course, was that Bush is alarmingly
incurious about other countries, despite the influence and wealth of his
father, and that in a crisis, his poor understanding of foreigners would be a
severe handicap. As he goes around calling other countries “evil” and doing seemingly
everything he can to humiliate our traditional allies, we see the validity of
this fear.
Footnote
50. (p. 42) Alter, "The Lessons of Oprahland 'Between the Lines,'"
Newsweek, 10/2/00. See 49-53, above.
Footnote
51. (p. 42) Today Show, 11/11/00. See 49-53, above.
Footnote
52. (p. 42) Holt and Alter, "Effects of Mideast Violence on U.S.
Presidential Campaigns," Saturday Today, 10/14/00. See 49-53, above.
Footnote
53. (p. 43) Alter, "What Presidents Are," Newsweek, 10/23/00. Should
be "What Presidents Are For." See 49-53, above.
Footnote
54. (p. 43) "A Yank at Oxford," Sunday Times (London), 10/25/92.
This article summarizes young Bill Clinton’s time at
Oxford, as a Rhodes Scholar, and traveling on the Continent. Ann’s point is
that in 1992, the media’s concern with the disparities in the candidates’
foreign experience was very muted – they were unimpressed by Bush Sr.’s wide
foreign experience, even as compared to Clinton’s limited experience.
This is a valid point, but (as usual) Ann ruins it by
going too far: “Clinton’s wide travel consisted primarily of his joining antiwar
protesters across Europe and in Moscow during the Vietnam War.” In fact, the
article describes his war protests in England (in light of all that has
happened since, it is wryly amusing to see that the article credits a “former
Miss Arkansas” with persuading him to go to his first peace protest), his
efforts to avoid the draft, and his tour of Oslo, Helsinki, Moscow and Prague
over December 1969-January 1970. The article gives a small amount of support to
Ann’s claim that he joined antiwar protesters (apparently briefly; Clinton says
it was a coincidence) in Oslo, and none at all to the other three cities. In
Helsinki, he visited the family of a student friend. In Moscow, he somehow got
involved with a group of American private citizens trying to negotiate prisoner
exchanges with the North Vietnamese. In Prague, he visited another family of a
student friend, dissidents suffering severe reprisals for their part in the
“Prague Spring” uprising of 1968.
To be sure, in Moscow and Prague he spent time with
political activists, but several cuts above the scruffy image Ann promotes with
her “antiwar protesters.” Indeed, how can anyone, least of all a Right winger,
show such disrespect to the freedom-fighting Czech family? This is all written
from just the perspective in the article Ann cites. There may be evidence,
possibly even credible evidence, that Clinton was engaged in other, more
blameworthy activities on his Continental tour. But if that were true, why
wouldn’t Ann give better citations?
Footnote
55. (p. 43) (String cite to several articles dated October 1992) Ann is about half-right
in her assertion that the news media she cites (NYT, LAT, Wash Post, AP,
Nightline) were skeptical of Bush Sr.’s motives in raising the Clinton-visited-Moscow-in-1969
“issue.” But she is wrong that they thought Bush “vulgar.” They actually
thought Bush “desperate.” According to the articles, Rep. Robert “B-1 Bob”
Dornan (R-CA) had been shopping the innuendo around for weeks, even though he
admitted he had no evidence. He was ignored until (surprise!) the Washington
Times put it on the front page. At the time, Bush was lagging in the polls and
the handwriting was on the wall. Bush brought it up in a way that enabled him
to pretend it was all off-the-cuff, but the newsies soon proved that it was
calculated, sort of a Willie Horton for 1992. [Aside: Good ol' stiff, wooden,
humorless Al Gore came up with a pretty good pun. He called the Dornan/Bush
hypothesis the “October Surmise.”]
Footnote
56. (p. 44) Allen, "Fund-Raising in N.Y. Sets Record Pace,"
Washington Post, 3/31/00. Ann’s remarks on campaign finance reform (pp 43-44)
are, to me, incoherent. I quote them in full:
It is hardly surprising
that liberals are terrified of campaign finance laws that allow ordinary people
to participate in public political debate by contributing to political
campaigns. Relaxed campaign finance laws are dangerous because they allow hoi
polloi to get their two cents in. Noticeably, the news organizations
frantically hawking the “money in politics” stories continuously neglect to
mention that the media is wholly exempt from the campaign finance laws they
adore.
There’s no time to
mention the media exemption when there are important stories to be run on courageous
politicians like Senator John McCain, who champion the media’s utterly
self-interested demand for campaign finance restrictions. Carrying water for
the media is known as “fighting powerful interests” – powerful interests that
are not quite powerful enough to prevent the entire media from erupting in joy
at the mere mention of McCain’s name. The sinister, powerful interests McCain
confronted were little old ladies sending $20 checks to the Christian
Coalition. Even if the little old lady is Imelda Marcos, in politics power is
information, and no special interest group in the history of the universe has
wielded the power of the modern media in America.
Despite all the
hysterical news accounts of money corrupting politics, what liberals really
believe is that the power to influence elections by persuading voters should
reside exclusively with the media. Thus, complaining of the campaign
fundraising by Rudy Giuliani and Hillary Clinton in early 2000, Neal Rosenstein
of the New York Public Interest Research Group told the Washington Post:
“Hillary and Rudy are already in the paper every day.” The media should be the
sole purveyors of information about political campaigns.
In the left’s doomsday
scenario, the campaign finance laws would permit political speech by people who
worry about taxes and crime, don’t have $200 million or a position with the
elite media, or – God help us – have traveled overseas only three times.
Liberals malign such people as “the rich.” Only the mind-boggling resources of
the left could persuade so many people that these elitist snobs speak for the
little guy.
The only item footnoted is to verify the Rosenstein
quotation, which is correct. A short list of the things wrong with this
analysis includes: No citations are provided. Campaign finance reform does not
seek, and to my knowledge has never sought, to discourage "hoi
polloi" from contributing their "two cents," or even their $1000.
What does she mean that the "media is wholly exempt" from campaign
finance laws? How is it in the media's self-interest to restrict campaign
finance? The lion's share of political expenditures go to consultants,
advertising agencies, and the media where the campaign ads are placed. Why
would the media strive to cut off this revenue? How could the final paragraph
have been OK'd by a competent, or even an awake, editor? What is she trying to
say?
All
Content Copyright © 2002, 2006 by Stuart Eugene Thiel. All Rights Reserved.
[1] I have cleaned this up a little from the version on my website http://slannder.homestead.com. All Content Copyright © 2002, 2006 by Stuart Eugene Thiel. All Rights Reserved.
[2] It
is interesting to note that the Post apparently saw no conflict in assigning McCombs
to review Franken's book criticizing Rush Limbaugh, when McCombs actually had a
bone to pick with Limbaugh. As McCombs tells it, two years earlier, he had
written an article about President Clinton that Rush read, repeatedly, on the
air, saying it made him sick. Amazingly enough, a dittohead from
Apparently
this kind of conflict of interest does not bother the Post. It was recently
revealed that it had published reviews of Conason &
At least McCombs, unlike Ann's brethren at the American Spectator, disclosed his conflict of interest right up front: "[When Franken's book came out] I rushed to get a copy, remembering with intense pleasure Rush's rather chipper all-out assault against me on his radio and TV shows a couple of years back." The Conason and Brock reviewers never revealed their ulterior motives.