Slander: Liberal Lies About the American Right

ANN COULTER

SLANDER

LIBERAL LIES ABOUT

THE AMERICAN RIGHT

CROWN PUBLISHERS NEW YORK

Copyright © 2002 by Ann Coulter

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.

Published by Crown Publishers, New York, New York.

Member of the Crown Publishing Group, a division of Random House, Inc.

www.randomhouse.com

CROWN is a trademark and the Crown colophon is a registered trademark of Random House, Inc.

Printed in the United States of America

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Coulter, Ann H.

Slander : liberal lies about the American right / Ann Coulter.

Includes index.

1. Liberalism—United States.

2. Mass media—Political aspects—United States.

I. Title.

JC574.2.U6 C68 2002

320.52’0973—dc21 2002006049

ISBN 1-4000-4661-0 10 987654321

FOR ROBERT JONES

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Thanks to my long-suffering friends who give me ideas and editing advice, which I habitually ignore. Among them are Hans Bader, Frank Bruni, Elli Burkett, Jim Downey, Miguel Estrada, Melanie Graham, David Limbaugh, Jay Mann, John Harrison, Gene Meyer, Jim Moody, Jeremy Rabkin, and Jon Tukel. In the event that any of them are nominated to confirmable positions or work for the New York Times: They are absolutely not responsible for what I write.

Also not responsible for what I write is my amazing, brilliant editor, Doug Pepper, proving that I don’t dislike editors as a class, and my sainted agent, Joni Evans.

Novenas should be said to Brent Bozell and the Media Research Center, who have been on the case long before I was.

Thanks always and forever most of all to my two brothers, John and Jim, and my parents, Mother and Father.

Finally, with sincerest thanks to Pinch Sulzberger and the entire staff of the New York Times, without whom this book would have been impossible.

CONTENTS

ONE LIBERALS UNHINGED 1

TWO THE GUCCI POSITION ON DOMESTIC POLICY 27

THREE HOW TO GO FROM BEING A “JUT-JAWED

MAVERICK” TO A “CLUELESS NEANDERTHAL”

IN ONE EASY STEP 45

FOUR CREATING THE PSYCHOLOGICAL CLIMATE 56

FIVE ADVANCE AS IF UNDER THREAT OF ATTACK:

FOX NEWS CHANNEL AND THE ELECTION 75

SIX SAMIZDAT MEDIA

SEVEN THE JOY OF ARGUING WITH LIBERALS:

YOU’RE STUPID! 121

EIGHT CLEVER IS AS CLEVER DOES:

THE LIBERAL DILEMMA 151

NINE SHADOWBOXING THE

APOCRYPHAL “RELIGIOUS RIGHT” 166

CONCLUSION 197

NOTES 206

INDEX 243

slander

ONE

liberals unhinged

The natives are superficially agreeable, but they go in for cannibalism, headhunting, infanticide, incest, avoidance and joking relationships, and biting lice in half with their teeth.

margaret mead

Political “debate” in this country is insufferable. Whether conducted in Congress, on the political talk shows, or played out at dinners and cocktail parties, politics is a nasty sport. At the risk of giving away the ending: It’s all liberals’ fault.

As there is less to dispute, liberals have become more bitter and angry. The Soviet threat has been vaporized, women are not prevented from doing even things they should be, and the gravest danger facing most black Americans today is the risk of being patronized to death.

And yet still, somehow, Tom DeLay (Republican congressman from Texas) poses a monumental threat to democracy as we know it. The left expresses disagreement with DeLay’s governing philosophy by calling him “the Meanest Man in Congress,”
¹
“Dangerous,”
²
“the Hammer,”
³
“the Exterminator,”
⁴
and the “Torquemada of Texas.”
⁵
For his evident belief in a Higher Being, DeLay is compared to savage murderers and genocidal lunatics on the pages of the
New York Times.
(“History teaches that when religion is injected into politics—the Crusades, Henry VIII, Salem, Father Coughlin, Hitler, Kosovo—disaster follows.”
⁶
)

Liberals dispute slight reductions in the marginal tax rates as if they are trying to prevent Charles Manson from slaughtering baby seals. Progress cannot be made on serious issues because one side is making arguments and the other side is throwing eggs—both figuratively and literally. Prevarication and denigration are the hallmarks of liberal argument. Logic is not their metier. Blind religious faith is.

The liberal catechism includes a hatred of Christians, guns, the profit motive, and political speech and an infatuation with abortion, the environment, and race discrimination (or in the favored parlance of liberals, “affirmative action”). Heresy on any of these subjects is, well, heresy. The most crazed religious fanatic argues in more calm and reasoned tones than liberals responding to statistics on concealed-carry permits.

Perhaps if conservatives had had total control over every major means of news dissemination for a quarter century, they would have forgotten how to debate, too, and would just call liberals stupid and mean. But that’s an alternative universe. In this universe, the public square is wall-to-wall liberal propaganda.

Americans wake up in the morning to “America’s Sweetheart,” the
Today
show’s Katie Couric, berating Arlen Specter about Anita Hill ten years after the hearings.
⁷
Or haranguing Charlton Heston on the need for gun control to stop school shootings.
⁸
Her co-host, Matt Lauer, wonders casually why the federal government has not passed a law on national vacation time.
⁹
The
New York Times
breathlessly announces “Communism Still Looms as Evil to Miami Cubans”
¹⁰
and
Time
magazine columnist Barbara Ehrenreich gives two thumbs up to “The Communist Manifesto” (“100 million massacred!”).
¹¹

We read letters to the editor of the
New York Times
from pathetic little parakeet males and grim, quivering, angry women on the Upper West Side of Manhattan hoping to be chosen as that day’s purveyor of hate. These letters are about one step above
Tiger Beat
magazine in intellectual engagement. They are never responsive, they never include clever ripostes or attacks; they merely restate the position of the
Times
with greater venom: /
was reminded by your editorial that Bush wasn’t even your average -politically aware Yalie; he was too busy branding freshmen at his fraternity house.

In the evening, CBS anchor Dan Rather can be found falsely accusing Republicans of all manner of malfeasance
¹²
or remarking that a president who has been impeached, disbarred, and held in contempt for his lies is an “honest man.” Diane Sawyer pronounces that “the American people” are yawning at the news that the president was engaging in sodomy with a cigar and oral-anal sex with a White House intern.
¹³

Hollywood movies preach about kind-hearted abortionists, Nazi priests, rich preppie Republican bigots, and the dark night of fascism under Senator Joe McCarthy. Hollywood starlets giddily announce on late-night TV how much they’d like to give Bill Clinton a “certain type of sex” (as Paula Jones called it).

And then Americans wake up for another day of left-wing schlock, beginning their day with the CBS
Early Show’s
Bryant Gumbel somberly asking smut peddler Hugh Hefner for his views on a presidential campaign.
¹⁴

We read national magazines that pretend to be reasonable while seething with the impotent violence of women. We wade through preposterous news stories on Enron, global warming, Tawana Brawley, “plastic guns,” the melting North Pole, the meaning of the word “is”—until you can’t keep up with the wave of lies. It’s like being in an earthquake listening to all the gibberish.

When arguments are premised on lies, there is no foundation for debate. You end up conceding to half the lies simply to focus on the lies of Holocaust-denial proportions. Kind and well-meaning people find themselves afraid to talk about politics. Any sentient person has to be concerned that he might innocently make an argument or employ a turn of phrase that will be Discerned by the liberal cult as a “code word” evincing a genocidal tendency. The only safe course is to be consciously, stultifyingly boring.

It isn’t just public figures who have to be worried—though having millions of people listening to their spontaneous on-air remarks obviously raises the stakes a bit. But even a private conversation can be resurrected a decade later. Just a few years ago, a killer walked largely because a detective involved in the case had used the “N-word” almost ten years earlier. In a conversation with his then-girlfriend, Mark Fuhrman spun out imaginary dialogue for a movie script, and in so doing committed a hate crime. If the jurors in the O. J. Simpson case could have given Fuhrman the death penalty, he’d be sitting on death row right now. Cutting off your ex-wife’s head is a lesser offense in America than using certain words.

Vast areas of public policy debate are treated as indistinguishable from using the N-word (aka: the worst offense against mankind). Thus, Representative Charles Rangel (D-N.Y.) took issue with the Republicans’ proposed tax cuts, saying: “It’s not ‘spic’ or ‘nigger’ anymore. They say, ‘Let’s cut taxes.’”

The spirit of the First Amendment has been effectively repealed for conservative speech by a censorious, accusatory mob. Truth cannot prevail because whole categories of thought are deemed thought crimes.

For a fleeting moment, after the September 11 attack on America, all partisan wrangling stopped dead. The country was infused with patriotism and amazingly unified. The attack on America was such a colossal jolt, liberals even abandoned their endless pursuit of producing
some
method of counting the ballots in Florida that would have made Al Gore president.

Liberal sneers about President Bush’s intelligence suddenly abated—at first for reasons of decorum, but then because of the indisputable fact that Bush was a magnificent leader. In a moment of crisis, the truth overcame liberal naysaying. After having demeaned President Bush as a lightweight frat boy hopelessly ignorant of foreign policy, even Democrats were overcome with relief that Al Gore was not the president.

The bipartisan lovefest lasted precisely three weeks. That was all the
New York Times
could endure. Impatient with the national mood of patriotism, liberals returned to their infernal griping about George W. Bush—or “Half a Commander in Chief,” as he was called in the headline of a lead
New York Times
editorial on November 5,2001. From that moment on, the left’s primary contribution to the war effort was to complain.

They complained about the detention of terror suspects, they complained we were going to lose the war, they complained about military tribunals for terrorists, they complained about the Bush administration’s failure to solve the anthrax cases instantly, they complained about monitoring terrorists’ jailhouse conversations, they complained about the war taking too long, they complained about a trial for John Walker, they complained about (nonexistent) ethnic profiling at airports, they complained about the treatment of prisoners at Guantanamo, and they complained about Bush’s “axis of evil” speech.

And they complained about all the damn flag-wavers. The infernal flag-waving after 9/11 nearly drove liberals out of their gourds. For the left, “flag-waving” is an epithet. Liberals variously called the flag a “joke,”
¹⁵
“very, very dumb,”
¹⁶
and—most cutting—not “cosmopolitan.”
¹⁷
New York University sociology professor Todd Gitlin agonized over the decision to fly the flag outside his apartment (located less than a mile from Ground Zero), explaining: “It’s very complicated.”
¹⁸