Intelligent Design

Nielsen BookScan: Coulter’s “Godless” Debuts at #1

Spread the love

Ann Coulter’s ‘Godless’ Debuts at No. 1
June 14, 2006
By Kimberly Maul

After lambasting the widows of Sept. 11 and spanking Matt Lauer for “getting testy,” conservative political writer Ann Coulter sold more than 48,000 copies of her book, Godless: The Church of the Liberalism, as tracked by Nielsen BookScan. This will put the book at No. 1 on The Book Standard’s Nonfiction Chart and Political Science Chart and No. 2 Overall when the charts publish tomorrow.

MORE

14 Replies to “Nielsen BookScan: Coulter’s “Godless” Debuts at #1

  1. 1
    russ says:

    Ann Coulter does not blast “the 911 widows” as the link indicates. She blasts FOUR (4) particular 911 widows because they have attacked Republican party politicians, knowing that their widow (i.e. “victim”) status protects them from being attacked in the same way. They are “human shields” for the opposition party.

  2. 2
    tribune7 says:

    What I think Ann is doing here is punching a bully. She is ending a fight not starting one. When the smoke clears from this book, debate is going to be much more civil in this country.

    Thank you, Annie. You are great.

  3. 3
    eldinus says:

    While slightly off-topic, I would just like to point out that both Ann Coulter and George Carlin will be guests on the Tonight Show tonight. It should be interesting to say the least hehe.

  4. 4
    apollo230 says:

    William’s prose and arguments in his book, No Free Lunch, are phrased with intelligence, grace and with an even temper. Anne’s caustic style comes up short when compared to his.

  5. 5
    FuzzyHead says:

    One thing that I have appreciated about Coulter is her ability to say things that I would like to say. It would be politically incorrect to make some of the statements she makes, just because I am a white male. I certainly don’t think that every point she makes is with out criticism. She certainly writes in a caustic sense, which sells books. I wouldn’t write the same way, but I can’t get away with some of these things.

  6. 6
    Doug says:

    eldinus,
    what happened on the Tonight Show with Coulter and Carlin?
    I couldn’t imagine Carlin actually engaging Coulter in a debate. He’s more of the ‘sit at the back of the class’ and fire *humorous* criticisms/insults.
    He’s a psuedo-intellectual if I’ve ever seen one.

  7. 7
    tinabrewer says:

    Nothing happened on the Tonight Show. Carlin doesn’t claim to be an intellectual. He is a comedian. Coulter and Carlin were not intended to debate one another. She didn’t say much about her book, due to the format (which is very superficial and not designed for any in-depth discussion anyway).

  8. 8
    Charlie says:

    She did mention that the point of her chapter that included the widows was to demonstrate that the liberals will not allow you to criticize the victims they use as unassailable spokespeople.
    Since all of the furor from the liberals is over that chapter her point is very well made.
    She noted also that they don’t complain one bit about being called “Godless” right in the title.

  9. 9
    tinabrewer says:

    Of course her vacuuous point about the “unassailable victims” used by “liberals” represents perhaps the purest example of hypocrisy I’ve recently observed in the media she so loves to criticize. I cannot think of a single instance in which an objective discussion of the pros and cons of the invasion of Iraq between opposing sides has taken place wherein “conservatives” have failed to use the “you are not being supportive of our troops who are in harms way” bludgeon. It is precisely the same tactic: stifle debate about an issue you are insecure on by playing the “unassailable victim” card. Who wants to be a cad and not “support our troops”, whatever that means. I personally know many families who pray daily for “our troops” but who opposed the invasion and occupation. Its just the same type of trash on both sides…avoid the actual issue at all costs.

  10. 10
    Mats says:

    I wonder if Darwinists will hire liberal theologians (if they haven’t already) and have them say that her book offends “religious sentiments” (that is, liberal “religious sentiments”).

  11. 11
    DWSUWF says:

    >”what happened on the Tonight Show with Coulter and Carlin?” Doug

    I saw it … Carlin did his shtick, Coulter did her shtick, I’ve heard them both word for word on other talk shows. Just two comedians plugging their latest wares, the usual Tonight Show fare. Between the two comedians, I thought Coulter was funnier.

  12. 12
    Charlie says:

    Tina,
    Is it vacuous or is it hypocritical?
    If it is exactly the same as the conservative “support the troops” mantra why are you making a vacuous post against that?
    Either her point is valid, as is your countercounter, or it is vacuous when either of you make it.

  13. 13
    tinabrewer says:

    I disagree, charlie. If someone makes a point steeped in hypocrisy, it becomes vacuuous by definition: a point which might ideally have had some real substance gets that substance “sucked away” (like a vacuum) by the obvious hypocrisy of the speaker. Its like a Dad lecturing his child not to smoke while lighting a cigarette. Its just not an impressive demonstration of one’s conviction in the idea itself.

  14. 14
    tinabrewer says:

    charlie: I read and reread your post. I suppose I didn’t get it quite clearly the first time. sorry. I think you might be making the mistaken assumption that I have a liberal political bias and therefore am supportive of the use of victims on the liberal side. That would definitely make me a hypocrite as well. Thats not the case, though. Mainly I am completely apolitical, and if I care about politics at all, my view would be a total hodgepodge of beliefs which never ever fall under one tent or the other. So when I say this about her point being hypocritical, it is in the light of my knowledge that she is VERY political and totally committed to one side in all things political. I would like to find out what her view of the “support our troops” mantra is. What I am possibly guilty of here is in assuming that she would encourage that mantra. I’ll look into it.

Leave a Reply