Two Minute Fame
February 9th, 2009
Some people are famous for being associated with (or related to) already renowned individuals. Kevin Federline comes to mind; so do the modern Kennedys. Others are famous because they’ve worked much, much harder than everyone else. Oprah Winfrey is a great example of this. Then there are those who seem to approach fame like pro wrestlers, launching themselves out of anonymity by starting a feud with an established superstar. What aspiring jobber didn’t want to instantly become the greatest villain of all time by breaking Hulk Hogan in his heyday? On that note, meet Daniel Borchers.
Who the hell is Daniel Borchers? Well, he’s the editor in Chief of Brother Watch, a conservative publication which made its entire November 1997 issue a tribute to Ronald Reagan. He popped up in the left-wing blogs this weekend because Connecticut’s Elections Enforcement Commission is responding to his formal complain that Coulter committed voter fraud. Coulter has been cleared of similar charges in the past.
The story would give me pause if Mr. Borchers hadn’t done something like this before. At the 2002 Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC), he passed around copies of Brother Watch which bashed Coulter. He may have gotten away with it if it hadn’t read like a left-wing throwaway from a college bookstore. In it, he called the prolific author an “acid-tongued-blonde,” and accused her of being animated by an “emotional cauldron of hatred.” He printed that conservatives cannot “tolerate” her hate-mongering, abuse of power, mendacity, etc. In addition to that, he’s called Coulter’s fans “sycophants,” and accused the controversial writer of “dividing families,” as if her bombast was a threat to anyone’s household. I hear he’s currently selling paintings of Coulter with red eyes and a moustache scribbled on her visage.
Like a gambler who recklessly invests tens of thousands of dollars just trying to break even, Borchers has been pursuing a way to bring Coulter down since at least 2002. On CoulterWatch, another one of his websites, Daniel assails Ann about things she wrote in her first book, and even undermines his own overarching case that conservatives should be more civil by calling her “bin Coulter.” Take away his obsessive, extended relationship to Ms. Coulter, and Daniel Borchers is just another aspiring political commentator.
Mr. Borchers calls himself an “old-school conservative,” and much of the archives in BrotherWatch.com attest to this. But I’m an old-school conservative, and nothing in my education tells me that latching on to flimsy charges of plagiarism and defamation has anything to do with the six canons of conservative thought. Conservatives would be wrong to turn a blind eye to unethical behavior in their own ranks, such as former Republican Senator Ted Stevens’ seven felonious violations of federal ethics laws. But there’s a difference between righteous condemnation and Borcher’s self-serving persecution.
Even if he somehow gets his fifteen minutes of hate (or is it two minutes of fame? I always get those mixed up) Borchers might be disappointed to learn that critiquing Coulter from the right doesn’t make him special. If any of his overblown accusations actually stick to Coulter, it likely won’t make Mr. Borchers more important to the general public than he already isn’t. Here’s a list of right-wingers who have criticized Ann Coulter with more substance and class than the left’s favorite traditionalist of the week:
Jonah Goldberg states that Ann Coulter was disloyal and unprofessional after the National Review decided not to run her second column after 9-11.
David Horowitz criticizes Treason, my favorite Coulter book, for being over the top.
Michelle Malkin has never liked Coulter’s occasional “witless” taunts.
Mitt Romney, Rudy Giuliani, and John McCain all condemned her in one way or another for implying John Edwards was the new f-word at CPAC 2007.
Hugh Hewitt compared Coulter’s 2007 comment with Michael Richard’s intemperate bellowing of the “n-word.”
I think much of Coulter’s last effort, Guilty, is a rehash of Slander.
I’ve never met Daniel Borchers, but I get the impression he’s well-intentioned, but sheltered, and just doesn’t “get” Ann Coulter. She’s a fiery polemicist, so taking her at face value, which Borchers seems to have done, is to misunderstand her from the beginning. Appreciation for sarcasm, which Borchers has not demonstrated online, is a prerequisite for comprehending the post-modern conservative.
Demonstrating the left’s eager accolading of all things anti-conservative, Mother Jones Magazine has called the founder of CoulterWatch subversive. For what? Daring to say bad things about Ms. Coulter from a conservative standpoint? It’s been done (see above). Let’s face it, when a middle-aged man defends himself by noting that the FBI has determined he’s not a threat to a particular woman, desperate, not subversive, is the first word that comes to mind.
Cross-posted at Modern Conservative