Why Coulter was invited to NYU is the first question.
http://gothamist.com/2008/12/11/ann_coulter_bombs_at_nyu.phpNYU student and blogger Ned Resnikoff's account of Anne Coulter's appearance at the university last night is so sharp you'd think the kid has a bright future in journalism ahead of him, if it wasn't for journalism's implosion: "Once you realize that the dog whistles are really all she has to offer, you finally understand what Ann Coulter’s all about. She’s about as much a serious political commentator as Carlos Mencia is; both go for cheap laughs by playing off of the worst in human nature... Unfortunately, my real question of the night never got asked: What the fuck were the NYU Republicans thinking? Ann Coulter hasn’t been politically relevant since she called Edwards a fag...Alas, the fact that College Republicans invited someone as alienating and nakedly anti-intellectual as Ann Coulter is just a metaphor for what you see happening to the Republican Party on the national level: the moderate voices of reason are getting ignored or marginalized, while the true believers burrow further into the warm, velvety soft cocoon of their own assholes."
Here's the blogger Gothamist references with filmclip:
http://nyulocal.com/on-campus/2008/12/11/inside-coulterfest-08/Coulter herself was pretty much what anyone familiar with her shtick would expect. The opening speech wasn’t really a speech at all, but a series of one-liners and less-than-witty witticisms that ranged from the outrageous (”Where are the thoughtful, reflective Arabs saying, ‘Why do we hate the Jews, anyway?’”) to the mystifying (”Did anyone ever run on a platform of despair, the status quo and keeping people apart? Besides Ralph Nader.”). But there was no coherent idea behind the speech, just a series of right-wing dog whistles.
Once you realize that the dog whistles are really all she has to offer, you finally understand what Ann Coulter’s all about. She’s about as much a serious political commentator as Carlos Mencia is; both go for cheap laughs by playing off of the worst in human nature. And neither of them are worth the time and effort it takes to get offended, because doing that gives them the attention they so desperately crave.
It was fascinating listen to her answer serious questions with completely unrelated tangents on why liberals are shitty. In fact, some of her responses were borderline incoherent, as she tried to figure out how to pivot away from answering a question to just delivering the next clever jab at the left. It’s almost like she had a crypto-fascist magic eight-ball hidden behind the podium, and whenever someone asked a serious question she would spout off whatever tenuously relevant wingnut aphorism came up when she shook it.