Coulter dodges CNN cameras
SUMMARY: CNN correspondent Brian Todd became the latest to discuss the recent allegations regarding Ann Coulter, who is accused of plagiarizing at least three passages in her recent book, Godless, as well as portions of several columns. Coulter reportedly refused to appear for the CNN segment.
On the July 7 edition of CNN's The Situation Room, correspondent Brian Todd became the latest to discuss the recent allegations regarding right-wing pundit Ann Coulter, who is accused of plagiarizing at least three passages in her recent book, Godless: The Church of Liberalism (Crown Forum, June 2006), as well as portions of several of her Universal Press Syndicate columns. Todd stated that Coulter "is getting as good as she gives," while guest host John King reported that "there's a new controversy brewing -- not about her comments in that book, but the inspiration behind them." The story was first reported July 2 by the New York Post after a review by the company iParadigms found that Coulter had plagiarized portions of her new book from Planned Parenthood, the San Francisco Chronicle, and the Portland Press Herald. Media Matters for America has noted the controversy here, here, here, and here and asked that Random House, parent to the Crown Publishing Group, which published her book, take action. Crown responded, but Random House has not.
Coulter reportedly refused to appear for the CNN segment. During the segment, Todd said: "Coulter's publicist said she couldn't appear on camera."
From the July 7 edition of CNN's The Situation Room:
KING: For weeks now, conservative columnist and author Ann Coulter has sat high on The New York Times best-seller list with her controversial new book. But there's a new controversy brewing -- not about her comments in that book, but the inspiration behind them. Our Brian Todd is here to explain. Hi, Brian.
TODD: Hi, John. New allegations of plagiarism now against the woman who's made a career out of being a lighting rod. She's the left wing's living nightmare but spares seemingly no one who she thinks is politically insincere, like some September 11th widows.
COULTER: Apparently cutting a campaign commercial for [Sen.] John Kerry [D-MA] was an important part of the grieving process.
TODD: She also wrote about the widows that she's "never seen people enjoying their husbands' deaths so much." Now, conservative author and columnist Ann Coulter is getting as good as she gives with allegations that she plagiarized several passages in her columns and in her best-selling new book, Godless.
HOWARD KURTZ (Washington Post media critic): When you engage in the kind of incendiary rhetoric that Ann Coulter does, there are a lot of people out there who are going to be pouring over every syllable that you write to try to find something they can use against you.
TODD: One passage in question: On page 95 of the book, Coulter writes of Judge Charles Pickering, quote: "[A]s the president of the Mississippi Baptist Convention, Pickering presided over a meeting where the Convention adopted a resolution calling for legislation to outlaw abortion."
Checked against this passage in a 2002 news release from the group Planned Parenthood, the only difference is that Planned Parenthood had the word "judge" before Pickering's name and the year 1984 later in that line.
Coulter's publicist said she couldn't appear on camera, but her book publisher issued a statement saying, quote: "We have reviewed the allegations ... and found them to be as trivial and meritless as they are irresponsible." Coulter's syndication company says it's reviewing the allegations, but the editor of a conservative weekly who runs her columns also defends Coulter.
TERENCE JEFFREY (Human Events editor): Does anyone really think that Ann Coulter is trying to plagiarize Planned Parenthood? Ann is not a reporter, she's a commentator. She takes her facts from other sources.
TODD: The investigation of Coulter was done by a company called iParadigms, which looks into plagiarism for high schools and colleges. Company officials and representatives of the New York Post newspaper tell CNN the Post reached out to iParadigms to investigate Coulter. Washington Post and CNN media analyst Howard Kurtz says the Post may have been upset by Coulter's attacks on the September 11th widows. The Post denies that. Its editor in chief says the paper looked into it after seeing online rumors about alleged plagiarism by Ann Coulter. John.
opportunity to appear on air. Maybe she(?) is worn out from the schedule for the week.
after her most recent episode of fisting.
I think I would cut it off my arm afterwards...
while we're on the subject of Ann Coulter, check out what happened when she was late calling in to Adam Corolla's radio show.
"the only interview where Ann didn't say something offensive." [courtesy Crooks and Liars]
...no trans bashing. You're suggesting that Ann is trans and insinuating that this is a bad thing. Please leave it to neocons to be bigoted against queer people.
Please.
..most of the liberals on here have a problem with trannssexuals. I know I don't. But I do have a problem with people who are gay, lesbian or transsexual and instead of accepting it, attack others for those very reasons.
don't you think if she were trans, that this would be known by now? We all leave a trail. I suspect that professional snoops have snooped.
When folks say, "Ann's a man," they do to Ann what is done to many, many women: they attack her looks. You can see it in thread after thread: if folks are mad at a woman, they attack her appearance, 'cause that hurts women.
So, please, refrain.
I don't think she's a transsexual. But she does, at the very least, seem to be a self-loathing or "self-hating" woman. And for that, she deserves some bashing, in my opinion.
Call her a cockroach. A bedsore. Dingo diarrhea. Be creative. A rude, lewd, crude bag of prechewed food. Have fun. Have at it.
But please avoid language that is homophobic.
Now, I'm about to assume that you're a middle-aged white guy. If you aren't, please pretend that you are. Sit back and watch me bash Ann:
"Ann's as vile as a middle-aged white guy. She's as ucking fugly as a middle-aged white guy. She's no better than a middle-aged white guy."
Now, writing that, I sound like a fool, for we all know middle-aged white guys that are progressive and care about the Constitution and are steamy slices of man pie, but when you say that Ann is trans, you're channeling ignorance. How many trans people do you know? Dozens? Hundreds? How many do you feed and love and engage in emotionally intimate tete a tetes?
If you still don't get it, then try insulting Ann in these ways:
"Ann's as icky as a hispanic man. No, she's as nasty as a black man. No, she's as sleazy as a poor woman. Wait, she's as ugly as a blind woman."
And see how people feel about that. They won't like it.
Oscar got it. Is there anyone else here that gets this? Anyone else here that cares about queer people? That loves a few queer people. That believes that queer people take enough hits from the Right to deserve some tenderness from the Left?
..I haven't referred to Ann as a transsexual. And while I'm white, I'm only half-way to being middled aged (21).
(I just happened to come across this, and thought some of you might enjoy it..)
[link to www.crooksandliars.com]
...transpeople, then why are you arguing with me?
But I'm glad you don't roll that way.
I suppose I was trying to speak on behalf of some of the people who have made comments about Ann's appearance. I do get a little bit irked when some of my own make comments like this. I usually try to call people out on it.. but for some reason.. when it's Ann.. I have a really hard time stepping in and stopping it, even though it does kind of put me off a bit.
Kudos for keeping people honest.
I wouldn't call most people "a vile pile of anal pus," but that's apt for Ann. And I too know the impulse to reach for something quick and cutting, like "Mann Coulter," because as a woman, I know how it slices when someone notes my big nose or tiny breasts.
But thanks for refraining. You're a sweetie too...and a progressive, for progressive people refrain from bigotry, which is an impulse in all of us. Neocons, on the other hand, have gotten elected on the backs of queer people.
it was an attempt at satire, Coulter style. I apologize for any offense that was taken.
You're not a grouch. You're a sweetie!
especially when I read you admonishing us about Annie and transsexual references and then you call her other names that could be construed as vicious by others. While Annie is not my favorite author/pundit/etc, I don't see what is gained in the discussion by calling her some of the rather vile names that you and others use. Based on the personal experiences you related above, I would have thought you above that.:(
Oscar, which names upset you?
These? “A cockroach. A bedsore. Dingo diarrhea. A rude, lewd, crude bag of prechewed food.”?
Or these? “Ann's as vile as a middle-aged white guy. She's as ugly as a middle-aged white guy. She's no better than a middle-aged white guy. Ann's as icky as a hispanic man. No, she's as nasty as a black man. No, she's as sleazy as a poor woman. Wait, she's as ugly as a blind woman."?
If it’s the first set, I don’t think cockroaches are going to be offended by being compared to Ann. Rude, lewd, crude bags of prechewed food are also indifferent. And I offered the first set as an “If you must attack, then use these.”
If it’s the second set, I used those to demonstrate how vile it is when people use “Ann’s a man!” to denigrate her. When “Ann’s a man!” is used as a slur, it doesn’t just attack trans people, but every woman who doesn’t hold tight to the ever narrowing notion of female beauty. It’s heterosexist. It’s misogynistic. It’s anti-feminist. And it ain’t progressive.
But people persist in saying “MAnn Coulter” because they want to hurt Ann and they assume that saying such things does hurt her. It also hurts other people, but because trans people are so few, most people can feel impunity when they use “Ann’s a man!” as a slur. Alleged progressives won’t feel so safe if they try to denigrate Ann by comparing her to a black man. Various groups assert that they’re the last safe point of public prejudice, but man, anytime Ann is mentioned on the Internet, posters say that “Ann’s a man,” as if that were a bad thing. They flip the Seinfeld homosexuality assertion, “…not that that’s a bad thing.” What’s unstated is “…and that’s (transexuality) a bad, bad thing.”
Now, it seems that attacking Ann in this way is sufficiently precious to enough people that ply the Internet and post at Media Matters for this trend to continue. But at the end of the day, anyone that does employ such language or permits it by their silence isn’t as progressive as they believed at the beginning of the day.
MLK, Jr.: "All that is necessary for evil to succeed is for good men to do nothing."
Now, I'd rather that no one use invective/slurs/ad hominem attacks with Ann. I sometimes succumb, in my frustration, to the personal, but that manifests my failings more than Ann's. Our response should focus on the message rather than the messenger.
Oscar, to be frank, I'm confused. Are you concerned about the feelings of cockroaches? Did you miss my intent in comparing Ann to a blind woman? Did you want to find fault with me because I questioned you? Or are you the undesignated defender for the MM posters that attack Ann's appearance?
Or is it something else?
And again, why is no else engaged in this discussion? It's not for your entertainment, although conflict can be entertaining. Most people will slow and stare at a car crash.
Are you other MM posters indifferent to queer people? To feminist concerns? Haven't you folks noticed how often a neocon woman's appearance is attacked? This doesn't just affect neocon women. It affects all women. All women witness what transpires when they don't meet expectations. And most women already bear a burden of physical self-loathing.
I'm going to start flagging heterosexist comments about Ann. If you write "MAnn Coulter" or "s(he)" or anything like that, I'm going to flag it.
And Media Matters staff, I beseech you to take a stand. You don't allow certain words that might offend people, but you do tolerate heterosexist sensibilities, such as "Ann's a man." Sasami seems to understand my position. I see no evidence that anyone else does. Do you, MM staff? Or would you rather let posters be unfettered in articulating their contempt for Ann Coulter, even if those articulations are heterosexist, misogynistic, etc.?
how ridiculous, progressives refrain from bigotry but conservatives live off the backs of it? typical inflammatory liberal race/sexual orientation baiting. you have no evidence of it, and you know it. conservatives don't play class warfare or pander to special interest groups in order to "secure" their support. all the while treating them like good little boys and girls who need to support liberal causes because "they care about them more". conservatives encourage hard work and personal responsibility which empowers people to be whatever they want to be. that's the difference.
You're filling your role in defending the Right, but you're wrong, wrong, wrong about the opportunism of the neocons concerning queer people. What about DOMA? Why wasn't Bush calling senators if he truly cared about defending marriage? It was a ploy to placate the fundies, as was using the queer boogeyman to elect Bush in both elections.
Regarding responsiblity, I read recently that Bush, et al has borrowed 4 trillion dollars. No body politic that borrows 4 trillion dollars gives a whit about responsibility. BushCo has bequeathed monstrous debt to millions of coming Americans.
But again, I really don't know what to say. Your party is based on hate. It was once based on fiscal responsibilty and personal responsibility, but that's history.
It simply amazes me how die-hards like RIGHTON can adhere to the notions of fiscal conservatism and equal opportunity in the face of the madness of the past 6 years (hell, let's go all the way back to Reagan #1). This neocon wet dream all began with Reagan anyway... (moment of silence for the neocon diety)
Bush has borrowed more than all presidents combined.
Depression/recession/economic collapse is coming, as the dollar grows ever weaker and it's all been brought to America by those that voted for Bush.
He's been a "spend, but don't tax" president, which is as self-destructive as a person with a runaway credit card who won't work.
how ridiculous, progressives refrain from bigotry but conservatives live off the backs of it? typical inflammatory liberal race/sexual orientation baiting. you have no evidence of it, and you know it.
Pray tell, Righty, which party is it that is so adamant about passing unecessary state and national constitutional amendments banning homosexual marriage and civil unions?
conservatives don't play class warfare or pander to special interest groups in order to "secure" their support.
As for class warfare, two words: "welfare queens." As for pandering to special interest groups, two words: "Christian right."
all the while treating them like good little boys and girls who need to support liberal causes because "they care about them more".
This is exactly what Repubs have been skillfully doing to the Christian right for over twenty years. Have the Repubs outlawed abortion, banned the teaching of evolution, reinstated prayer in the public schools, or any of the other things the Christian right demands? Heck no. But the Repubs keep telling the sheep "vote for us, we believe what you believe, we care about your causes more."
conservatives encourage hard work and personal responsibility which empowers people to be whatever they want to be. that's the difference.
No, it's not. Liberals believe those things too, and every time you suggest that they don't, you're lying.
Nice dissection of RIGHT ON's 'conservative bias'... I had a similar convo w/ him not too long ago... just when I think he sort of 'gets it'... he lets rip one of his little righty diatribes and, well, there you go...
I believe you complained about being called names as you were growing up. Suppose some of us were labelled "cockroaches, barf, etc." and perhaps you can see why we would be upset at some of the examples you used. I have no problem with you attacking the message, but why, if we are going to be civil, do we have to attack the messenger, be it as I did or as you suggested doing? Transexual references will offend a small minority, if we are not to do that, then should be not be aware of the sensibilities of others that may be offended at what you might see as normal, funny, or the like? BTW, I have seen the quote you attributed to MLK attributed to many others (mostly preceding his life). Could you cite the reference where the quote can be found as used by MLK?
Hmmm. I must have ingested some Drano because I don't remember that.
Oscar, I don't think you're understanding my position. I'll try again. I think people should attack the message and not the messenger. I sometimes attack the messenger, but never with pride. Those attacks come from what's small inside of me.
Stating that Ann is a man doesn't just affect your fellow citizens that are transexual. As I've posted a couple times, it also affects all queer people. And women. So, you might want to dismiss what you did with an assertion of a "small minority," but every progressive should be offended, for debasing someone by appearance or alleged sexuality isn't progressive.
I suspect that I embarrassed you. That wasn't my intent. To be frank, I'm embarrassed every time a liberal at MM posts that "Ann's a man" or something similar. Oscar, you have plenty of company in your attacks and if you were to search through the MM archives, you'll find plenty of examples where I've attacked people. So, if you want to finger me as a jerk, I'll help you: I'm a jerk.
I'm a jerk.
I'm a jerk.
I'm a jerk.
But this time, I'm trying to not be a jerk. I'm trying to not stand idly by why people attack Ann in this way...and indirectly attack many other people.
"Ann's a man" is more than a blunt instrument. It's like using an howitzer, when your foe is sharing a couch with you.
As far as the MLK, Jr. quote, just google it. You'll find tens of thousands of links. And yes, I think it's been attributed to other folks, much like the 'pygmies on the shoulders of giants' thingy. Good luck ever locating whoever first said that. It's so choice that it's been oft repeated. I think the "evil to succeed" line also works that way.
this women would just go away if her critics just shut up is nonsense. there is a huge audience of troglodytes who are more than willing to pay, whether it's for her books or lectures. and no one is expecting everyone in the republican party to jump on every word whe says. but rudy guiliani was mayor of new york when 9-11 happened and he refused to comment when asked about coulter's remarks about the 9-11 widows. so one can only conclude he didn't disagree. it's really no coincidence that conservative republicans and fundamentalists are frequently one and the same. both require little thinking and a nonquestioning belief in a strong daddy who tells you what to do and say.
It's even better than I had hoped. Not only does she not have the brains to sustain this level of acid madness... SHE'S CHEATED TO GET THERE!!!
Lots of fine people live in caves
"Cut and Run" Coulter!
"Cut and Run" Coulter!
Say it with me!
"Cut and Run" Coulter!
like it. It flows. Apparently Old Annie can dish it out in heaps, but she can't take it when the heat is turned on her. Don't look for her to appear anywhere else except on Fox for a while. They won't ask her about this.
hahahahaha! I am really enjoying this. Rush Limpbaugh, cut and paste Coulter, Bill O'Reilly has to be next!
"Cut & Paste & Run"
Already trademarked it. T-Shirts available shortly.
"We have reviewed the allegations ... and found them to be as trivial and meritless as they are irresponsible."
That kind of rhetoric sounds familiar. I'll bet Coulter wrote that line.
So the publisher put together this GEM of rebuttal:
"... and found them to be trivial and meritless as they are irresponsible."
TRIVIAL means the charge had merit, but the instances were too small to matter IN THEIR JUDGMENT.
MERITLESS means the charge had NO merit.
trivial AND meritless (rather than "trivial OR meritless") means that BOTH of their evaluations apply in all cases, which is an oxymoron ... BOTH cannot possibly be true. The rebuttal is thus contradictory.
"as they are irresponsible" is vague, because it is unclear what "irresponsible" modifies. Was COULTER irresponsible, for employing plaigarism, even if judged "trivial"?
Or is the CHARGE irresponsible, even though the publisher has admitted the charge has MERIT, even if judged "trivial"? Keep in mind, "trivial" is a subjective judgment, and is at the heart of most JURY trials. Criminals can be depended upon to characterize their offenses as "trivial" ... but juries often disagree.
A publisher who cannot produce a clear sentence cannot be considered a proper arbitor for the writing of others.
Good point. Also notice that they have the publicity guy responding to a legal allegation. I doubt that the Random House legal department will adopt such a cavalier attitude if the NY Post et al. take the matter a step further.
Yeah, the PR guy doing the 'scuse-makin'.
I mean, really, why would we expect ANY business or operation in America to give a fig about honor, integrity, or honesty? After all, with BUSH leading the way, we have learned that in order to WIN and make a buck, it's OK to lie and cheat and steal and lie some more. Then call those you cheated "losers" and "traitors". That's now the AMERICAN WAY!!!!
(No, it's not. Americans get tired of constantly feeling like they need to take a shower. We are embarrassed by Bush and crew ... they are quite simply the PITS.)
While I appreciate MMFA's relentless coverage of anything anti- Coultergeist, in the end I don't see these allegations making any difference to her core audience or the rakeholders for her profits at the publishers. Anybody who will stoop to read her doesn't care about proper footnoting.
It's a shame that she's suddenly tucked tail and refused to make a public statement beyond her barbed pot shot at the Post.
Her fans will continue to place her on her pedestal and kiss her alibaster ass and call it pure heaven.
Such a shame.
She doesn't use FOOTnotes but ENDnotes because she knows her readership is too lazy to look up an endnote. A footnote is too great a risk. Imagine what would happen if some dizzy goofball "Coulter reader" (doesn't that sound oxymoronic, it does to me) were to look up her citations and discover that Annthtax is a habitual misuser of quotes.
Her two favs are the old "quote of a quote" ploy, which is quoting a line from, say 1890, that was repeated in an article written in 2005, but then accrediting it as though first uttered in 2005, and the "vivisection parsing" where she quotes one or two words completely out of context then pretends it has thing-one to do with the surround text written by her, to lend credence to her dingbat opinions.
She is the journalistic equivalent of explosive diarrhea. Need I say more?
I'm still waiting to hear from just one republican why it's ok to fire a reporter for saying Bush hid in a bunker on 911 (true, btw) bit it's not OK to remove Coulter from the air permanently for her devisive hate speak. There is a double standard in the republican party on this subject. Please, justify...
when is Ann Coulter a reporter?
You are comparing apples to oranges. If she were a reporter, she wouldn't last 10 seconds.
She is a political commentator whose vicious wit is tailor-made for t.v. soundbites.
S/he isn't a reporter, so s/he can say whatever s/he wants with no consequence? Thanks for pointing that out.
Everyone, take note. We can say whatever we want about Shrub because we aren't reporters. Thanks to Helmet head's keen insite the sky's the limit as long as we don't take a job with the New York Times. Enjoy!
Wit? only for the severly brain damaged
... definitions are fairly subjective now aren't they? To leather-boy... well, she's witty. Please. That is a hoot.
I just love it. Coulter sounds like a rabid moron...and, yet, she still plagiarized info! The irony here is just so good.
She's a real joker... [link to www.workingforchange.com]
trolls complaining about the messages posted here? Like Coulter, anybody can say anything about anyone. Hmm...there would seem to be no reason for trolls to even read Media Matters anymore, let alone criticise the contributors and those who post messages.
how none of the women's right advocates want to defend Ann's rights to express her opinions.
Kind of like none wanted to criticize Bill Clinton for his sexual transgressions and having sexual encounters with an intern.
These charges are a joke. "We have reviewed the allegations ... and found them to be as trivial and meritless as they are irresponsible." That sums it up nicely.
doesn't deserve the defense of women who have fought against her kind of lying garbage slinger for decades. Clinton's liason with an intern was his business and nobody else's until the Republican panty-sniffing machine dropped 70 million taxpayer dollars in an all-out war to discredit the man personally because it lost on every other front. The so-called liar never lied about policy, something that certainly can't be claimed for the serial liars that dominate this madministration. Coulter is just red meat for a moron base, selling lies and innuendo to a frightened, ignorant 29%. And her so-called #1 books never make it into paperback, and can be bought on wingnut webites for 5 bucks, so we get the joke.
how none of the women's right advocates want to defend Ann's rights to express her opinions. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Probably for the same reasons Gay groups didnt stand up for the rights of Jeffery Daumer or John Gacy
Perhaps they didnt throw a fit about Clinton having CONSENSUAL sex with an intern because they thought what two consenting adults do is none of their business.
Thank you. It's a standard Hannity-esque "trick" to accuse NOW of not coming to the rescue of the latest rightwing cause, which has a female element.
At root of this tactic is revealed the right's fundamental misunderstanding of the motives of "leftists" and the merits of every issue.
If it's a WOMAN, then NOW MUST defend her. Right? Right? Wouldn't that be consistent?
No. Try to understand: It's about JUSTICE, fair play, and making this a better nation. Coulter is the antithesis of these ideals, and so NOW would have no interest in defending her. Get it?
How about the times that those on the right attack those on the left who chose to not support all black politicians blindly?
Somehow the fact that we object to Condi Rice's subservience to Bush, or Clarence Thomas' ignorant opinions from the USSC bench means, in their eyes, that we are prejudiced against blacks.
And similarly, our objections to Ann Coulter's diatribes mean that we don't support women's rights like 'good liberals' should!
Exactly! The Rightwingers PURPOSEFULLY "misunderstand" what it is we Liberals actually stand for. They claim it is a simplistic and utterly blind allegiance to things that don't matter ... i.e. color or gender ... simply because Liberals attack INJUSTICE in those areas.
I say they PURPOSEFULLY misunderstand, in order to charge "hypocricy", because the Rightwing couldn't be so stupid they don't KNOW our Liberal arguments are not so shallow ... could they?
It's not the gender, it's the INJUSTICE. It's not the color, it's the INJUSTICE. It's not the political party, it's the INJUSTICE. It's not the WAR, it's the INJUSTICE. Get it, rightwingers?
Funny how none of the women's right advocates want to defend Ann's rights to express her opinions. -Leatherhelmet
------------------------------------
Is your helmet on too tight? Why would a women's rights advocate defend an anti- woman pundit just because she appears to be female?
--"how none of the women's right advocates want to defend Ann's rights to express her opinions."---
But no one says Coulter cannot express her opinion. She does not have a right to pass-off another's words as her own, however. That's plagiarism. If you want to defend The Right to Plagiarize, have at it. But you'll be lonely.
So NOW should hop to it and defend Coulter because someone is saying she doesn't have the right to speak. Who? Name someone who is saying this. Not me. I think Annthrax ought to be allowed to publish and distribute her frothing mad ravings, same as the neo-Nazis and the KKK and every bastion of hate-based rhetoric.
I am a firm believer in the dissemination of bigoted idiocy, if for no other reason than showing people how unhinged these people are. That's right. I consider Ann a bigot. Hating any group of people for something they cannot help being is bigotry. See, liberals are thinkers who cannot stop being thinkers, so that makes her a bigot. No, I am not bigoted against conservatives or even Ann. That would be like hating a bear for being attracted to a campfire cookout: it's just their nature to lash out irrationally.
As for the Clinton sex comment…please stop with this crap. It was irrelevant then, it’s irrelevant now.
You had a point about Coulter not being a reporter. But womens rights groups shouldn't stand up for anybody that uses hate speech towards them all the time. Impartiality belongs to the ACLU, who would probably sue on her behalf if she was censored. They do it for the KKK and Rush Limpbaugh, why not her. Point is the trivial attempts you make at pointing out liberal hypocricy fall short as they start from a false premise. That you know what your talking about. But keep posting, you do get the wheels churning and that's a good thing.
This isn't about Ann expressing her opinion ;it's about Ann expressing other people's opinions. In their words.
Really, folks. They teach this in Freshman English.
It's not just that Ann will tell you other people's opinions, claiming them as her own words, when they support her position.
Ann will also tell you what LIBERALS think, how they feel, and what their motivations are. Lest you think this is a neat "MIND READING" talent, she gets all that stuff exactly WRONG. As fate would have it, Coulter discovers that Liberals think, feel, and are motivated in perfect ways to help her make her point of demonizing them. If she had to rely on REALITY or TRUTH, she would lose this valuable weapon in her quest to foment hatred AND MAKE MONEY DOING IT.
What delicious irony. You have managed to forget--if you ever knew--that NOW did publicly back Paula Jones in her sexual harrassment suit against Bill Clinton. They defended her right to be heard and said that every woman like her had a right to have their grievances taken seriously.
In fact, it was while working as a lawyer on Jones' behalf that Ann Coulter was first thrust into the public spotlight, to the latter's everlasting regret.
Now, will you kindly open your mouth, remove your socks, close your mouth, and not open it again until you can say something above a fourth grade mentality? I really despair of seeing anything from you that merits the time spent reading it.
I’m shocked to see that even the editor of Human Events does not see anything wrong with “commentary” that does not give credit to original sources. “Does anyone think that Ann Coulter’s really trying to plagiarize Planned Parenthood?” asks Terence P. Jeffrey, editor of Human Events, on CNN.
Well, no, whether or not she “tried to” is immaterial - SHE in fact DID! There’s the nuance that doesn’t seem to pass the broken wires of his courageous defense of Coulter.
Nice! Especially coming from an editor who has allowed prevaricating pundits like Coulter, Tabor, Malkin, Platt Liebau and Buchanan to perpetually peñata Jayson Blair.
Talk about postmodern moral equivalency. Tell Ann to pull that crap on her paper in a college course, Mr. Jeffrey, and they’ll have her expelled from the university for academic dishonesty faster than she can say “traitor". Any self-respecting journal editor would take this matter VERY seriously.
Human Events columnists shouldn’t be held to the same standards? Don’t worry, I won’t hold Ann to the same standards either. Like I ever did…
Leatherhelmet: Your last comment made no sense. First, you wonder where woman's rights groups are to defend Annie's right to express her opinion. Coulter's "right" to express her opinion is not an issue. She has the right to express her opinion; noone here (or anywhere) is asking the government to censor her. Rather, we are asking the media not to give her a forum to express them. The media has no obligation to give anyone airtime, so why fill limited airtime with hate speech? That is not censorship or taking away poor Ms. Coulter's "right to free speech." Next, you say noone wanted to criticize Clinton for his sexual transgressions. That is untrue. Virtually everyone criticized Clinton for his behavior. What liberals did not think was right was trying to turn Clinton's behavior into a constitutional crisis and an impeachment fiasco, and liberals strongly disagreed with the actions of a partisan, unethical prosecutor who never found any evidence of wrongdoing in Whitewater working with Paula Jones's attorneys to "get" Clinton. As for your contention that the plagiarism charges are a "joke," any serious writer could tell you they are not. The plagiarism charges leveled against Stephen Ambrose, Doris Kearns Goodwin, and Stephen Oates were much less egregious than Ms. Coulter's complete copying of entire passages, but each of these authors were severely tainted by the charges. If your point is that Ms. Coulter's readers will not care because they do not expect her to be intellectually honest anyway, then I see what you mean.
there were two columnists who were fired right after 9-11 because they said that bush hid in a bunker. and the idea that coulter is some kind of "wit" is far funnier than any of her material. she's a name caller. calling widows "harpies" doesn't involve a lot of talent, and certainly doesn't put her in the class of mark twain, to whom she compared herself. twain was a wit. she's witless, in every sense.
Before you call Coulter "witless", remember that is a subjective judgment.
People are different. The President reportedly found great amusement in sticking firecrackers in frogs, and blowing them up. Some find hours of glee in pulling the wings off flies. A great many find "Larry the Cable Guy" to be a tremendous wit.
So, depending on viewpoint, Coulter could go either way; either witless, or all wit.
There is no wit in her rhetoric. It's all baldfaced hate.
So, you vote "witless". Me, too.
you're not dissing Larry the Cable Guy, Tex. He's the only reason l may drag my nephew along to the cinema to watch Cars!!!
I find Dan "Larry the cable guy" Whitney to be stupid, unfunny, and witless. I don't care if he is in "Cars," if he's funny in that movie, it's because those aren't his words.
On his cable special, talking about Natalie Maynes of the Dixie Chicks, Whitney stated, "That fat one should shut up."
Cable guy, heal thyself.
Crazy Annie's just a twit.
I thank Ann should be allowed to talk. I just wish so many neocons wouldn't encourage her. She spits invective and people applaud that by buying her books. Once upon a time, Republicans were about deceny. Ann's indecent. I don't like porn either, but I adore the first amendment, so pornographers and Ann should be allowed to ply their trades.
The more Ms Ann runs off at the mouth, even having to steal other people's words, and the more the adoring conservative telecasters slobber over her, the more I am convinced she is a Democratic plant. It's really brilliant. Like the tail wagging the dog thing. No intelligent Republican ( yes there are a few ) would want anything to do with her or her publications. And the vast undecided middle sees her and sees Republican and votes Democratic.
I do not believe that under any circumstances that her so called opinions, hate filled as they are should be allowed to go unchallenged. It's the same as giving them approval.
As well I have no problem with attacking her in any way shape or form. Going after her for any reason is completely within bounds. It might be different if she was someone you could respect for simply expressing a well thought out and respectful opinion.
She isn't even in the same ballpark, country, planet, or universe.
She is a coward, a liar, a thief of words, pyschotic, pyschopathic and outright demented.
Anything used against her if fair game. Besides it's not like she reads any of this anyway or for that matter anyone from her camp. SO most of it is just spouting off.
So as far as I am concerned, Ann "I am NOT a man" Coltergiest is completely an open dart board. Lessee here I managed to throw an insult about her sexuality, And insult horses (COLTergiest ( I mean she DOES have a horse face)) and even evil ghosts.
How'd I do?
She is dispicable.
One of the things we ought to be questioning here is why CNN and Washington Post "media critic" Howard Kurtz is once again doing everything he can to downplay any actual media criticism of a conservative.
Notice in the above quotes that Kurtz, as a self-proclaimed "media critic," doesn't address plagiarism, nor the merits of the iParadigm investigation, nor what it would mean in the media if Coulter is actually guilty of plagiarism. Instead, all his comments are all bent toward ascribing shadowy motives to the investigation. It's not, apparently his opinion here, that columnists should be carefully reviewed for plagiarism, it's simply that poor Ann Coulter has become a "target" and "a lot of people out there... are going to be pouring over every syllable that you write to try to find something they can use against you." Likewise, Kurtz says that the investigation may have been because the Post was upset about Coulter's remarks about the 9-11 widows.
It would be great if Media Matters would go back and see if Kurtz took the same approach to other accusations of plagiarism and shoddy newspaper parctices, like the Jayson Blair scandal. Did Kurtz spend his time fretting over the motives of who started the investigation into Blair or why they might have started it? Somehow I doubt it: the story was that Blair was caught making things up. The investigation could have been started by Blair's vengeful ex-lover or his worst enemy ever, and the results would have been the same: Blair was undeniably guilty of major ethical offenses. That was the story.
The story here is: is Ann Coulter guilty of plagiarism? If she is, that's the story, period. If someone is caught on camera robbing a bank, we don't whine about how they were unfairly arrested because one of the cops on the force might have previously personally disliked them. Would Kurtz?
If Kurtz is a true "media critic," then why does he sound like an enabler for plagiarism here? Someone should make Kurtz answer the question: what if even those investigating Coulter were even the most partisan, vengeful people who'd ever been born on earth-- if she's still provably guilty of plagiarism, shouldn't she be fired? I'd like to see Kurtz put on the spot about that.
From all the spin in the reported news segment. She's the Left Wing's living nightmare? What survey or prominent op-ed does that come from? Could they quote a source for their claim? Of course not! Because it's a bogus, fabricated straw man.
She's getting as good as she gives? Wait a minute, I thought plagiarism was illegal! What allegation of illegal actions by anyone has she ever made that were in any way substantial?
People are "poring over every syllable" to find "something" to use against her? Puh-llleeeze! Every syllable is something that can be used against her. No poring is needed!
The Post may have been "upset" that Coulter attacked 9/11 widows? When's the last time you heard the MSM say that a newspaper was "upset" by attacks on, say, US troops returning from Iraq?
Just to be sure we get a "fair and balanced" view of the pertinent laws, we hear from two Coulter defenders, and NO copyright attorneys.
Let me off this ride, I'm getting sick to my stomach!
Couldn't we just ignore this woman. Do people really buy her books? Real people? Are you sure? Do you know anyone who bought one of her books? Don't people like Grover Norquist buy up thousands of these books and give them away?
I think everybody's missing the biggest story of all...THE BLACK COCKTAIL DRESS HAS LEFT THE BUILDING AND (HOPEFULLY) IS HEADED FOR THE CLEANERS!!!!!!!!!!
Let's hope it actually goes somewhere. My dream is to one day walk out of the house and find the following headline on my morning paper:
"Americans FINALLY Sick of Ann Coulter" "Circus Sideshow Recognized As Such: Coulter Media Blackout Unanimously Accepted"
Wow, it must be a bad time for that borderline fascist crap-satchel if she avoided an opportunity to say something libelous or offensive to the cameras.
I've always been amused to death that she complains about the negative response she gets from those people outside of her kool-aid drinking audience.
Seriously, it's not like the things she says are conducive to rational debate.
She deliberately neuters the prospect of civil discussion with the outrageous crap she spews forth just so she can play the victim when she gets the precise sort of reply she was angling for.
Her chagrin is my delight.
I've never seen someone enjoy someone's husbands' deaths so much...
That's an original thought, by the way, I made that up myself, and didn't rip off another "author"...