Home > Shame!

Slamming Conservatives -- Intellect plays no Part

by John F. Tamburo, Editor in Chief, Publisher
Originally Posted: 7/12/2005 12:49:25 PM

There is an extreme left wing web site called www.campusprogress.org.  While I will not get into the internal inconsistency of using any variant of "progress" in a liberal context, I will get into the shameful invective that these extremists pour upon us.  The editors of this site are the winners of my "I hate every word you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it" award.  The victim of these people:  Ann Coulter, inaugural member of our conservative commentator Hall of Fame.

Let’s start with a horrible caricature.  Now Ann has been excoriated and defamed for years because she is not fat.  She has been blasted as anorexic.  In fact, there used to be a coulter-smear site called anexoric-annie.com.  Saturday Night Live had Drew Barrymore parody her cadence, but then resorted to name calling about her physical appearance.  Were she a left-wing quasi-communist, the lefties would be calling her "hot," not anexoric.  This is, however, typical.  Ann Coulter is so intellectually sound that her detractors are unable to answer her intellectually.

"The regressive Campus ’Progress’ website is no different.  This web site purports to be a tool for liberals to argue against conservatives."

The regressive Campus "Progress" website is no different.  This web site purports to be a tool for liberals to argue against conservatives.  So here are some of the choice arguments liberals are given to attempt to rebut Ann’s positions:

• "Lately, Coulter’s love life has received an unusual amount of attention from almighty gossipers at the New York Daily News’ Daily Dish. Apparently, the rabid right-winger has been spotted all over New York City with the twenty-something, left-leaning Rob Ryan. Coulter and Ryan, who is a country singer and a self-proclaimed Dem, apparently spend time not talking about politics at Coulter’s Upper East Side apartment. I know, I know, you thought Coulter was a good Christian girl who was saving herself for her husband."
  Didn’t Ann Coulter move to Florida about five months ago?  Also, I never remember Ann Coulter saying anything about being celibate, or never dating.  Finally, how does this information, if true (it was, after all, in a gossip column) rebut Ann’s position on anything at all?
   
• "On television, she is a stick-thin blond whirlwind of uber-conservative hyperbole. Her psychotic-sounding outbursts are perhaps best appreciated when read by that little girl on the Daily Show’s ’Great Moments in Punditry’."
  Again, how does this rebut any of Ann’s positions on anything at all?
   
• "Coulter quickly gained a reputation for being, as Al Franken elegantly put it, ’the reigning diva of the hysterical right. Or, rather, the hysterical diva of the reigning right.’ Coulter seemed to wear her shrill nastiness as a badge of honor, and with it she built a career that has included four books, a mind-numbing assortment of syndicated columns, and hours upon hours of television talk shows with her cruel, fallacious rants."
  Notice that there is simply no argument against the position, only the person.
   
• "Ann Coulter has been called ’a bizarre sideshow,’ a ’talking kite,’ and ’just plain evil. But CampusProgress.org won’t stoop to name calling. We promise not to sink to the sub-basement level of this venomous pundit, seemingly delusional storyteller, and popular conservative campus speaker as we offer you a brief profile."
  No stooping, eh?  "Venomous pundit?" "Seemingly delusional?" "Stick-thin blond?"  "Psychotic-sounding outbursts?" "Shrill nastiness?"  These quotes are written by the site author, not quoted by others.

http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/attack.htm contains the definition of the logical fallacy of Argumentum Ad Hominem.  The abusive variant is where the attacker comments on the person instead of rebutting her position.  The Tu Quoque variant is where the attacker argues against the position by stating that the opponent does not practice what she preaches.  The salacious gossip column bit about Ann supposedly dating a left-wing country singer 15 years her junior and then taking him back to her apartment is apparently untrue, but is certainly ad hominem tu quoque.  The rest are abusive.

"The page lists some of Ann’s more colorful comments near the bottom.  However, the site does not even attempt to rebut them, apparently assuming that the comments are absurd and deserve no reply.  However, this is in and of itself an ad hominem attack."

The page lists some of Ann’s more colorful comments near the bottom.  However, the site does not even attempt to rebut them, apparently assuming that the comments are absurd and deserve no reply.  However, this is in and of itself an ad hominem attack.

Here is one of Ann’s better comments from the site:

"On academics:  ’In addition to racist and Nazi, how about adding traitor to the list of things that professors can’t be? And yes, I realize I just proposed firing the entire Harvard faculty.’  (Speech at Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC), 2/18/2005)"

What about this statement is wrong?  Isn’t Larry Summers the president of Harvard?  Didn’t he almost lose his job because he merely mentioned a study about women’s mathematical aptitude versus men?  Now if you were to say, "But Ann, what precisely did the Harvard faculty do that constitutes treason?," then you are challenging the position.  Considering that the context of Ann’s speech was the treason of Ward Churchill, and the remark was obviously tongue-in-cheek, what is the purpose of excoriating this remark?  All of the quotes are similar.

Now should we engage in ad hominem tu quoque and say that the left can be tongue in cheek at will, but they treat every syllable of the right as dead serious?  Ann Coulter’s July 6 article states that the standard for choosing a Supreme Court nominee is that he or she should be violently opposed by Chucky Schumer.  Was Ann serious or was she engaging in hyperbole in order to press a point?

Finally, does Ann Coulter have any Constitutional right to Free Speech?  Or does the left only believe in free speech for those who agree with them?  Does she have the right to date whom she pleases?  Did you think that, if the Rob Ryan story is true, she may be attempting to win him over to the right side?  Or even worse, maybe she genuinely likes the guy for who he is and does not impose an ideology test upon her prospective boyfriends!  Then again, Ann moved to Florida.  Is this story even true?

When questioned by the gossip columnist, Ann responded by e-mail.  The article states: "Coulter, always a good sport, told me via E-mail: ’I refuse to admit or deny whether Rob Ryan is a Democrat.’ "  The article is dated April 30.  I don’t know if Ann had moved to Florida by then.  Who knows and who cares?

If you have a gripe with Ann Coulter’s reasoning, challenge the reasoning!  Slamming her personally is immature and intellectually vacant.  To Ann:  Don’t hold your breath waiting for a well-thought response to anything you say.