ash advises columnist/cartoonist Ted Rall on the urgent matter elucidated within:
I wouldn’t watch you if it had to be with Coulter. I don’t watch her on TV, alone, debating anyone, about anything, on any network, under any circumstances. It’s all I can do to SKIM her column then quickly read someone liberal to neutralize the rotten taste.
In my opinion, to appear opposite her would be to confer some level of credibility, even dignity, upon her, regardless of my debating skills, regardless of the tantalizing prospect of exposing her for the fraudulent and hypocritical lunatic she is.
But if you still feel compelled, here’s my suggestion: address the subtext. That’s a Psych 101 term for respond to what the other person is thinking, not saying. The motives or intentions behind the words. Also the bogus reasoning. For instance, several years ago (the last time I didn’t change the station upon the sight of her) she was comparing providing condoms in high school to passing out loaded guns. To that you say, “Wow, that’s convoluted logic, just like Archie Bunker used.” Or, as Katrina van den Heuvel did say, when Coulter complained about lack of conservative representation in the media, “Ann, you live on TV.” It stopped her cold. So when Ann declares Canadians lucky to live on the same continent as Americans, do you dispute it as valid opinion? Or do you remark how pitiful it is to watch her inferiority complex on display, not to mention mindlessly echoing the jingoistic, bullying mentality of people you thought, frankly, were so much dumber than she. Liberals are racists? How desperate for attention you must be to resort to something so patently absurd.
OK, I’m vamping. Not very clever but remember I haven’t seen her in action for quite some time. When in doubt, you can always say (or I guess you can say it just once) “I remind you, we’re not on FOX.” You won’t be on FOX, will you? That would be rigged in her favor. You could also respond to her gross generalizations on issues (she still does that, right?) by pointing out, “This is a common tactic used by the right to discredit the left, when actually…” whether it’s social security, war, patriotism, or whatever the topic. Talk over her head to the viewing audience. Yeah, that’s good.
In conclusion, may I relate a great example of addressing the subtext which has nothing to do with Coulter. Recently, OJ Simpson (wow, someone even more loathsome) was interviewed claiming that Denise Brown, Nicole’s sister, was only too happy to profit from Nicole’s death through the charitable organization for battered women Denise runs. Denise, taking the bait, responded, “Oh, yeah? I’ve only made such and such dollars in x amount of time…” Oh, Denise. You don’t take a creature like Simpson’s incendiary accusation at face value. Instead, you say, “I’d be only too happy to return to obscurity, poverty-stricken, to have my sister alive.” That’s how you handle Coulter.
Chickenshit that she is, I doubt you’ll be debating Coulter in our lifetimes. If you do, you understand why I won’t see it. You know whose side I’m on.