Nov
27

The House that Ann Built

By


ann_coulter_lj_icon.gif

————————————

Nasty words to columnist hit home

Some of controversial columnist Ann Coulter’s invective has boomeranged and resulted in threats at her Palm Beach home.

The Miami Herald reports “Conservative columnist Ann Coulter is nationally notorious for vitriolic broadsides, but she has been unnerved by invective she received at her Palm Beach home. So much so that she got the county property appraiser to remove her name from public records identifying where she lives.

In doing so, she won an exemption from public disclosure of her address, allowed by law for victims of stalkers or harassment.

Coulter, 45, has called Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards a ”faggot” and said she wished he would be killed by terrorists. She once said President Clinton ”could be a lunatic” and wrote of a group of widows of men killed in the World Trade Center that she had ‘never seen people enjoying their husbands’ deaths so much.”

So maybe it came as no surprise when somebody delivered a greeting card to her home in March with this salutation: “You self-aggrandizing — sociopath!! The only thing left after a nuclear war are you and cockroaches…”

Coulter, a lawyer and author, paid $1.8 million for her two-story home on a quiet street between the Breakers Hotel and Worth Avenue in March 2005.

“…Somebody called 911 from Coulter’s home on July 2, 2006, but hung up. A neighbor called in December to report a man sleeping in his car in front of Coulter’s house. It turned out he was working on a job site.

Police driving by in January said Coulter was in violation of a town ordinance requiring her house number to be visible from the street. In another drive-by in June, they found her in violation of water restrictions.

The month of March, however, was the most vexing for Coulter, who did not return a phone message asking for comment.

The evening of March 25 she heard somebody screaming from a vacant lot next door: “Ann Coulter is a big [expletive].”

Coulter called police, then went downstairs and locked a door. When police arrived, the person was gone. Coulter opted not to file a report. But police placed a ”special watch” on her home.

Coulter called again a few days later. She had checked her mailbox and found an apparently hand-delivered pink and white envelope inside. It read, ”Ann Coulter!!” Below her name was a cupid heart with an arrow drawn through it.

On the greeting card inside was written: “Go [expletive] yourself.”


Read the rest
of the article.


-Twisted Rants Of Ann Coulter-

———————————–

Her last idiocy was trying to, as she put it, “perfect the Jews.”

Comments

  1. rip says:

    Damn, I hate it for her…..

  2. DBK says:

    Sounds like a personal problem to me.

  3. bobaloo says:

    Sooooo…you support her being harassed at her home, or you just find it funny?

  4. Gordon Smith says:

    Sooooo…you support her wishing political leaders dead or you just find it funny?

  5. bobaloo says:

    No, but I do support the free speech of everyone and correct interpretation of their comments. I even defended David Horowitz, despite my extreme dislike of him, on Crooks and Liars when that site celebrated shutting him down at lectures.
    I certainly found her “faggot” comment offensive and believe that she makes her living by being outrageous and as controversial as possible. But you know, deep down, that she didn’t really “wish death” upon him (though she did dig herself a deeper hole of idiocy).
    And, I might add, she was expressing the belief that none can be perfected unless they come to Christ. That’s what Christians believe. Kind of like Muslims believing you can’t be perfect unless you believe in Islam. That’s how religion works.

  6. Gordon Smith says:

    This is what I find a lot of persecution-minded Christian Republicans claiming, “If you criticize my speech or find it unpalatable, then you’re curbing my right to free speech.”

    This is nonsense.

    Criticism is speech, too.

    What some folks seem to want is agreement or silence from critics. This isn’t going to happen. Folks have all the free speech they can get. I simply believe that pushing Ann Coulter to the top of the media heap is pushing this right wing agenda as well.

  7. bobaloo says:

    So you think sending anonymous and harassing letters and yelling at her from a vacant lot to be “criticism”? Or yelling over someone that is invited to give a speech to be criticism?
    That’s not criticism, it’s immaturity.
    By the way, you haven’t really responded to any points I’ve made.

  8. Gordon Smith says:

    No Bob, I’m not.

    The harassment and intimidatory stuff is entirely uncivil and immoral.

    I think I address all of your points, didn’t I? Speech is speech. Some groups cry “censorship!” when someone disagrees with them. Disagreement isn’t censorship or depriving someone of their rights.

  9. the real problem from where I sit is that she is in the news again and that will get her on TV shows and that’s how she makes a living – you want to criticise her? Ignore her and anyone like it – be it on the left or right etc.
    We got bigger problems to focus on – like the dramatic decline of the US Dollar – the crash of cheep credit – the stagnant housing market – a 1.5 trillion dollar war – etc.

  10. shad marsh says:

    I think it’s funny.

  11. rip says:

    Surely she doesn’t expect to be able to spew her insane wing nut rantings every time she’s in front of an audience or has the media’s attention, then go home and expect to be treated with some sort of respect????

    Yeah, it’s funny as hell.

  12. uptown ruler says:

    bob,

    i find the situation – deliciously ironic.

    hence the title of the post.

  13. DBK says:

    “Sooooo…you support her being harassed at her home, or you just find it funny?”

    Who is “you”, bobaloo? You aren’t very specific there. Since your question immediately follows my own response, assuming you mean me (though it is possible you meant the author of the posting), I will answer you.

    I don’t find it either. I don’t care. Sounds like a personal problem to me. If you are an inflammatory reactionary post-pundit who indulges in race-baiting, religion-baiting, and general baiting, you might have to expect that you’d piss some people off enough that they would do something looney, so I am not surprised. I am not even sympathetic. I just don’t care. I care about poor people who are starving right now for no reason other than that they had the misfortune to be born in unfortunate circumstances. And I care about middle class people who are wiped out because of a catastrophic illness that they can’t afford, even though they’ve dutifully paid their health insurance premiums for decades without a murmur and rarely put in a claim and never smoked and didn’t drink much and brushed after meals. But no, I can’t muster up much sympathy for some reactionary snot who made a fortune for herself by being as vile as possible and who can afford a personal police force to protect her and her mansion from the consequences of being as hateful to millions of people as she could possibly make herself.

    There are some limits to my sympathy. Never pretended to be a saint.

  14. DBK says:

    Did I forget to refer to her as a fever blister on the mouth of the body politic? How’d I leave that off?

  15. randallt says:

    ….” But you know, deep down, that she didn’t really “wish death” upon him………”

    Really? You know this about her? Of course she would like him dead. That’s who she is, evil and vile.

    On the subject of harassing people at their home. I think it is in poor taste and is much more akin to the actions of right wing monsters like Hannity and Bill O Liely. There’s a good diary by davefromqueens on the Rec list at the moment that addresses tis common Hannity/Levin tactic.

    But in the end, the real work needs to be in paying attention to a rapidly crumbling Constitution. SCOTUS just refused to hear a case that challenges a county’s practice of invading homes without a warrant to check on welfare applicants.
    What gets me about this is the willingness of the Right to to pshaw this when they used to be for less government. Less government indeed.

  16. bobaloo says:

    Gordon:
    So you condemn these kinds of intimidation tactics, no matter who they’re directed against. Excellent, I’m glad we agree.

    uptownruler:
    I’ll mostly agree with it being irony, though I don’t recall Coulter advocating such tactics.

    DBK:
    Not referring to you specifically, more the poster than anything else. Yes, I agree that she is quite the flame throwing idiot, but no, I don’t think it justifies what amounts to threats and harassment. I wouldn’t advocate anything of the sort, no matter how much I disagree with someone’s ideology. My larger point is that you can find plenty of comments on liberal blogs that would support this, but would condemn it as fascism if situations were reversed. Again, it should be condemned, not celebrated.
    And I agree, she’s a boil on the butt of political discourse.

    randallt:
    Right back at ya: Really? You know this about her? The only people I’ve heard her wish death upon is militant-Islamists.
    Classifying her as “evil and vile” (okay, she is pretty vile) is a popular strategy for dehumanization of opponents that your ideological opposites employ quite often, and which Liberals often decry. Way to become what you despise.

  17. bobaloo says:

    By the way:

    Ugg, I feel dirty for summarily defending Ann Coulter.

  18. randallt says:

    Well advocating death on Edwards seems pretty evil to me. Maybe you go to another church of thought. I was raised by my parents to think of advocating murder as an evil act. Ok, so she’s just vile. I’ll give you that since I haven’t spoken with her directly.

    My brother-in-law uses your same logic. Hitler was bad but he built really neat buildings.

  19. Jason Bugg says:

    First off, she’s a cunt.

    Now that we’ve established that, she shouldn’t be harassed at her home. I’d hate for anyone’s home life and feeling of security to be threatened if they said unpopular things. There’s a time and a place.

  20. shad marsh says:

    “The only people I’ve heard her wish death upon is militant-Islamists.”

    Then you haven’t (lucky for you)heard enough of her spew, here’s a sample:

    “We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity. We weren’t punctilious about locating and punishing only Hitler and his top officers. We carpet-bombed German cities; we killed civilians. That’s war. And this is war.”

    She seem’s to be advocating killing everyone here.

  21. bobaloo says:

    randallt:
    You and I know both know that she wishes death on Edwards just as much as Kerry said that people that join the military are stupid and get stuck in Iraq. Both statements taken out of context and used by political opponents.

    I’m not sure what logic you’re referring to, but I’ll concede that Hitler was evil.

  22. bobaloo says:

    shad marsh:
    So she made that comment about liberals? Or was it directly after the 9/11 attacks pertaining to terrorism supporting countries? Okay, so she advocated early 20th century warfare and dismissed civilian casualties as necessary. I stand corrected.

    Who here did she advocate killing?

  23. randallt says:

    The connection was simply this, sorry I wasn’t more clear.

    My Brother-in-law is a winger who thinks Coulter is awesome. He also thinks that Hitler wasn’t all that bad, just went over the top a bit with the Holocaust and all. He defends Coulter using a similar logic that you are trying to push here. “Aww, come on, she’s not that bad”. That just seems to be the case you are trying to make here.

    I clearly stated above that the home harassment tact was not acceptable to me because it is wrong and is the tactic that the monsters of the right use. Yes, I think they are monsters. Evil? We could debate that all day, and like I mentioned to you above, that’s probably not my call. But for you to automatically assume that Coulter and Kerry are guilty of the same invective is absurd.

  24. shad marsh says:

    She advocates killing as a political strategy, what difference does it make if she advocates killing brand A over brand B? Dead is dead.

  25. DBK says:

    My larger point is that you can find plenty of comments on liberal blogs that would support this, but would condemn it as fascism

    Exactly. Thank you for admitting it. In other words, your “larger point” is to be a “flame-thrower” like Coulter. To paraphrase your larger point in clear and concise language (without the faux civility and the excessive bandwidth), “You liberals are hypocrites and this proves it. You’re bad bad bad…” etc. Yeah, there’s a new point, and so very compelling. Thanks for helping us out with that.

    You can pretend all day long that you’re civil and thoughtful, but a brief examination of your “larger point” yields the discovery that it’s just tossing more shit in the game. Nothing like a thin veneer of civility over a big, heaping pile of horseshit when one makes a “larger point”.

    Color me neither surprised nor disappointed with someone whose “smaller point” is to show his sympathy to poor, oppressed Ann Coulter.

  26. randallt says:

    And by the way sir, if you feel so dirty defending her, why don’t you just wash up and clear yourself of the filth that is right wing America?
    Go ahead, it will feel so refreshing. Honest.

  27. rip says:

    I wonder how many of these episodes of harassment are real, imagined (as in hallucinations) or reported just for publicity?

  28. Hitler was bad but he built really neat buildings

    Mmmm … don’t know about the neat buildings (all I ever seen are drawings and models)- but he did built the Autobahn and Volkswagen etc.

  29. randallt says:

    About those buildings.

    You are probably right, along with the massive tunnel projects under the Sowie Mountains. He did, if I recall, use thousands of workers, some prisoners, some not, for many of his projects. I should go did around for some of those projects.

  30. rip says:

    I guess he built a lot of neat gas chambers too?

  31. Drama Queen says:

    Jason Bugg,

    I like my cunt. Do not demean it by using its name to refer to Ms. Coulter.

    I like my asshole, too, so I’m really looking for substitute invectives. Suggestions welcome.

  32. rip says:

    Assuming “she” was born with a cunt opens up an entirely new discussion.

    Now if one wants to discuss assholes, one should research the latest speculation on Trent Lott’s sudden resignation……

    I have no suggestions for substitutes and am also bothered by this as I am an admirer of cunts also.

  33. Arratik says:

    I thought that Jason had the honor of being the first to break the “Dreaded C-Word” barrier here at ScruHoo, but a search through the post archives and comment text reveals that the honor actually went to a comment that someone left back in September, and in this case he used the word “cunt” to refer to Ted Nugent. Sorry, Jason.

    As far as alternative invectives… how about “fuckstain”?

  34. Drama Queen says:

    Ewwwww fuckstain. I like that. Fuckstain. That IS nasty.

  35. Drama Queen says:

    Maybe someone can start a contest for the word Coulter like Janeane Garofalo did with Santorum.

  36. rip says:

    as in… coitus interruptus?

  37. Arratik says:

    Coultus Interruptus?

  38. rip says:

    ding, ding, ding

    I think we have a winner!

  39. b says:

    randallt:
    No, that’s not what I’m implying (that she’s not that bad). Read my comments again and you’ll notice I’m not exactly a fan.
    Nor am I trying to equate Kerry’s comment to Coulter’s comment. I’m equating taking them out of context to use as a political point.
    On top of all that, you implied defending Coulter was akin to defending Hitler. I hereby equate Godwin. :p

    shad marsh:
    Be that as it may, you said she advocated killing people here on this forum (i.e. liberals) and have yet to reference that. And no, the quote you used had nothing to do with liberals. Are you being dishonest or making a very ambiguous point linking all of humanity together?

    DBK:
    Point by point:
    “In other words, your “larger point” is to be a “flame-thrower” like Coulter. To paraphrase your larger point in clear and concise language (without the faux civility and the excessive bandwidth), “You liberals are hypocrites and this proves it…” etc.”

    No, the larger point is overall civility. Sorry if you think it’s faux.

    “You can pretend all day long that you’re civil and thoughtful, but a brief examination of your “larger point” yields the discovery that it’s just tossing more shit in the game. Nothing like a thin veneer of civility over a big, heaping pile of horseshit when one makes a “larger point”.”

    Seriously, if you reread my comments and will point out where I’m being fake, I’d appreciate it. Instead, you’re using a really childish strategy where, instead of responding to a point, you dismiss it by calling someone a “concern troll”, except you did it much more wordy. Yay for you.

    “Color me neither surprised nor disappointed with someone whose “smaller point” is to show his sympathy to poor, oppressed Ann Coulter.”

    Again, please point out where I expressed sympathy as opposed to objecting to harassing someone that you disagree with.

  40. randallt says:

    Boy oh Boy, where do I start.

    randallt’s…Your response to me was dishonest and as you are fond of saying , “and you know it”. You did not address any of my responses in an honest way.

    shad’s…please re-read the context. shad was talking about Coulter’s general tendency to want to kill everyone. Not kill everyone here on this blog. Come on, get with the program here bob.

    DBK’s….you ARE here to be a flamethrower. Why deny that? Your original entry into this discussion may have been disguised as concern over decency in regards to one’s private residence or public speaking venue. That premise has been addressed. Everything else sounds trollish to me, sorry. “Feel dirty defending her” . From the tone of your posts, I don’t think you do.

  41. bobaloo says:

    randallt:
    Dishonest in what way? Really, I need you to explain how, because everything I wrote there was an explanation for what you said or implied.
    Also, point to one single time I said “and you know it”. Just one.

    If you want to make any points, at least do it without flaming me. I’ve been nothing but cordial and reasonable. I’m not a flamethrower; it’s a blog for goodness sake. You know, where people talk about things?
    Sorry if I’m not walking in lockstep.

  42. Uptown Ruler says:

    From Media Matters:

    This is not the first time Coulter has alluded to killing those she disagrees with:

    * Commenting on radio host Melanie Morgan’s assertion that if New York Times executive editor Bill Keller were convicted of treason she “would have no problem with him being sent to the gas chamber,” Coulter said, “I prefer a firing squad, but I’m open to a debate on the method of execution.” She later suggested that Times staff members should be “executed.”
    * Coulter said of the media: “Would that it were so! … That the American military were targeting journalists.”
    * Coulter suggested that Rep. John P. Murtha (D-PA) is “the reason soldiers invented fragging,” — military slang meaning the intentional killing of a member of one’s own unit.
    * Coulter argued that the national debate during the Monica Lewinsky controversy should not have focused on whether former President Bill Clinton “did it,” but rather “whether to impeach or assassinate” him.
    * Coulter said of Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens: “We need somebody to put rat poison in Justice Stevens’s créme brulée.”

  43. shadmarsh says:

    Bob,

    My point had nothing to do with “liberals” but rather the advocacy of killing anyone, but if you want to know if she has specifically targeted liberals for execution, then here is a quote for you:

    “When contemplating college liberals, you really regret once again that John Walker is not getting the death penalty. We need to execute people like John Walker in order to physically intimidate liberals, by making them realize that they can be killed, too. Otherwise, they will turn out to be outright traitors.”

    there are more out there (including a column entitled “Kill All Liberals–not too ambiguous there), but I really have better things to do with my time than kill brain cells reading Andrew Coulter.

  44. randallt says:

    bob, I meant the “you and I both know” language in two of your posts, sorry for the confusion.

    Yes you are implying that a little bit of hate here and there is not bad. You are defending a famous hater. You are. Yes you DO link Coulter and Kerry. Your “political point” is a straw man. Your third point, was not dishonest, just clumsy. You danced far away from the comparison to my Brother-in-law’s fascist logic.

    I hope this addresses your need.

  45. Jessica B. says:

    Rip says:
    “Assuming “she” was born with a cunt opens up an entirely new discussion.”

    Uh-uh, don’t even go there. The transgendered community has enough to deal with, thank you.

  46. DBK says:

    And now bobaloo starts the rewriting his own history, writing:
    “In other words, your “larger point” is to be a “flame-thrower” like Coulter. To paraphrase your larger point in clear and concise language (without the faux civility and the excessive bandwidth), “You liberals are hypocrites and this proves it…” etc.”

    No, the larger point is overall civility. Sorry if you think it’s faux.

    His actual, original statement of his “larger point”, right there in this same thread where we can all see it, was: “My larger point is that you can find plenty of comments on liberal blogs that would support this, but would condemn it as fascism if situations were reversed.” In other words, it’s about hypocrisy. Nothing in there implies a desire for “civility”.

    Hard to pretend you said something else when your words are right up there on the same page for all to see.

  47. bobaloo says:

    randallt:
    I’m not saying a little bit of hate here and there isn’t so bad. I’m saying that responding to it in kind or endorsing harassment makes us no better than our opponents. That’s the nature of my defense of her. Not defending her opinions.
    And for the last time, I’m equating people taking quotes out of context for political gains, not equating Kerry and Coulter. I don’t know how to make it any clearer.

    DBK:
    You’re correct, I did say that. I didn’t deny it, but clumsily tried to clarify it. I’ve had my fair share of abuse on conservative blogs as well (proudly banned from a few!) and didn’t mean to imply that liberals were the sole hypocrites.
    But if you read all my posts you’ll see the call for decency.

    Thanks for the dialogue.

  48. Jason Bugg says:

    I’m deeply saddened that I wasn’t the first to drop the dreaded “See You Next Tuesday” at SH. Can I be the first to call her a Scrotum Suckpump, however?

  49. Arratik says:

    Jason: I don’t think she swings that way, but sure, you can be the first to call her a “scrotum suckpump” (which, btw, I think I like better than “fuckstain”.)

  50. Jason Bugg says:

    I liked it better than the other choice I had: Shitslut.

  51. shad marsh says:

    I think shitslut, while not as fun to say as scrotum suckpump, is probably a more accurate description of the Coulter.