20.01.2013 Views

Franken-Lies-And-the-Lying-Liars-Who-Tell

Franken-Lies-And-the-Lying-Liars-Who-Tell

Franken-Lies-And-the-Lying-Liars-Who-Tell

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

an editorial on Thomas titled, "The Youngest, Cruelest Justice." That was actually <strong>the</strong> headline<br />

on a lead editorial in <strong>the</strong> Newspaper of Record. Thomas is not engaged on <strong>the</strong> substance<br />

of his judicial philosophy. He is called a "colored lawn jockey for conservative white interests,"<br />

"race traitor," "black snake," "chicken-and-biscuit-eating Uncle Tom," 39 "house Negro"<br />

and "handkerchief head," "Benedict Arnold" 40 and "Judas Iscariot." 41 All this from <strong>the</strong> tireless<br />

opponents of intolerance.<br />

Okay. What percentage of Coulter's readers do you suppose read this and thought,<br />

"My God! The New York Times called Clarence Thomas `a chicken-and-biscuit-eating Uncle<br />

Tom'! I knew <strong>the</strong> Times was bad, but I never dreamed it was this bad!"? High nineties? <strong>And</strong><br />

what percentage do you think bo<strong>the</strong>red to go to <strong>the</strong> back of her book and wade through <strong>the</strong><br />

endnotes to discover that <strong>the</strong> quotes came from a Playboy interview with former Surgeon<br />

General Joycelyn Elders and from a black leader at a meeting of <strong>the</strong> Sou<strong>the</strong>rn Christian<br />

Leadership Conference who was quoted in The New Yorker.<br />

The key here, of course, is <strong>the</strong> sleight of hand—"... editorial in <strong>the</strong> Newspaper of Record.<br />

Thomas is not engaged..."—that deliberately leads gullible readers to <strong>the</strong> conclusion<br />

that <strong>the</strong> Times called Clarence Thomas "a colored lawn jockey." This should tell us a couple<br />

things about Ann Coulter. First, she's dishonest. No surprise <strong>the</strong>re. But more importantly, it<br />

shows <strong>the</strong> contempt she holds for her own readers.<br />

HOW TO LIE WITH FOOTNOTES #3:<br />

• CITE A SOURCE, BUT TOTALLY MISREPRESENT WHAT IT SAYS<br />

She really works this one into <strong>the</strong> ground. Early in <strong>the</strong> book she writes: "New York<br />

Times columnist Frank Rich demanded that Ashcroft stop monkeying around with Muslim<br />

terrorists and concentrate on anti-abortion extremists." Except he didn't. In <strong>the</strong> column, written<br />

during <strong>the</strong> anthrax scare, Rich simply criticized Ashcroft's refusal to meet with Planned<br />

Parenthood, which has had years of experience with terrorism in <strong>the</strong> form of bombings and<br />

sniper attacks from pro-life extremists. The piece doesn't include <strong>the</strong> words "monkeying" or<br />

"Islamic" or "Muslim," or make any suggestion that Justice abandon its efforts against al<br />

Qaeda.<br />

Coulter pulls this wild distortion, like so very, very many, directly out of her ass.<br />

Just ano<strong>the</strong>r quick one. On page 118 (by <strong>the</strong> way, when you see Coulter on TV, interviewers<br />

never ask her about anything past page 12. You've got to give me credit for being

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!