NY Times review of negative books about Ann Coulter

[monarch]

Surprise, surprise!! They got a Coulter apologist to slam the books.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/26/books/Heilbrunn.t.html?n=Top%2fFeatures%2fBooks%2fBook%20Reviews

[Donnachaidh]

1. why don't they have an email for this author?

Or is it easier to bluster when you cannot be questioned?

[Aviation Pro]

2. Author of the hit piece: Jacob "Heilbrunn"

Hail Brown?!? As in brown shirt or maybe UPS. If that isn't a pseudonym I don't know what is.

[Kelly Rupert]

15. Google his name.

It might be a pseudonym, but if it is, it's a pretty stupid one.

[orpupilofnature57]

3. Kkkarls kids have formed their functions well ,The top 1% won't forget!

Anna Cold-turd is a parasite of our language and media.

[jmowreader]

4. The cutesy little comment about the toilet was typical RW crap

Yes, the original 1.6-gallon toilets were VERY BAD indeed. 'Course, if you take the bowl off a 3.5-gallon toilet and stick a 1.6-gallon tank on it, the bowl (which expects three and a half gallons of water to flush all the shit away) isn't going to work right.

If you design the bowl with the expectation that there's a gallon and a half of water in the tank, which they are doing now, you get a good toilet. Look at the American Standard Champion and the Kohler Force Five toilets--they flush better than even 3.5-gallon toilets did. Because they're made right.

[CTyankee]

11. The toilets in Italy were awesome. They literally

flushed in a flash. BLAM! And they were low water, but pretty high velocity! They are a lot more environmentally conscious there.

[Montauk6]

5. "most prominent female conservative commentator of her generation"???

Oh Lord, help the movement!

Seriously, this airhead could barely stammer out an answer to Brian Lamb's simple question about why she considered Phyllis Schlafly a major influence on Booknotes.

Meanwhile, hindsight irony of hindsight ironies, this DITZ wanted the terrorists to aim there planes at the NY Times building!!!

[papau]

6. American Prospect Heilbrunn is an honest liberal that sees her as a nobody = so why the books?

Articles by Jacob Heilbrunn from The American Prospect:

Articles:

September 1996 (v7, no28): Who Won the Cold War?
By Jacob Heilbrunn

July 1997 (v8, no33): The Moynihan Enigma
By Jacob Heilbrunn

January 1998 (v9, no36): Apologists Without Remorse
American Conservatives on South Africa By Jacob Heilbrunn

July 1998 (v9, no39): The Clash of the Samuel Huntingtons
By Jacob Heilbrunn

January 1999 (v10, no42): Secrets and Lies
By Jacob Heilbrunn

[Puregonzo1188]

9. Heilbrunn didn't seem to be supporting Coulter

her main criticism was that the books overinflated her importance. I believe at one point she refers to Coulter "as a mortal threat to the Republicans."

[papau]

12. That was also my take - seemed reasonable n/t

n/t

[Kelly Rupert]

14. Reading his stuff, he's a conservative, but a rather intelligent, moderate, detached one.

He doesn't engage in the shrill rhetoric that conservative pundits do.

[WCGreen]

7. If Susan Estrich is the best the left has to offer

to counter AC, no wonder we lost so much ground...

Coulter is, as the writer points out, a self-promoting gad-fly who has no real influence or power...

By writing books against her, recognizing her at all, the professional left chatters play right into her hand..

[selfdestructive]

8. ann coulter apologist lol

in my mind i hear
umm yeah about ann coulter guys.....
ummmm yeah we're sorry.
that is all

[MethuenProgressive]

10. "Heilbrunn is currently writing a book about neoconservatism."

F*ck the New York Times, and the SeigHeilaburton they rode in on.

[Kelly Rupert]

13. He's not a Coulter apologist.

He's just saying the books are largely worthless, because they fundamentally misunderstand Coulter. They pretend she's an evil mastermind of manipulation, when in reality she's a shrill hack, repeating the thoughts of other pundits--only more offensively. He's not defending Coulter, he's claiming her attackers are inept. He's fulfilling the job of a book critic--criticizing the writing, not the validity of the cause.

From the conclusion:

While Coulter has skillfully disseminated such nonsense, her detractors supply no evidence that she has ever had an original thought. And they can’t. Instead of exposing Coulter as a mortal threat to the Republic, the only thing they expose is their own credulity. In the end, these witless little books don’t puncture the Coulter myth. They inflate it.