Coulter's reward for her "downright hateful" comments: another appearance on CNN!
On the March 5 edition of CNN Newsroom, correspondent Rick Sanchez reported on right-wing pundit Ann Coulter's March 2 speech to the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) in which she said she "can't really talk about" Democratic presidential hopeful and former Sen. John Edwards (NC) because "you have to go into rehab if you use the word 'faggot.' " Sanchez said that "with her latest anti-liberal tirade, she took outrageous, some say downright hateful, to a new depth." Yet even as Sanchez reported Coulter's "downright hateful" comments, on-screen text throughout the piece promoted her scheduled March 5 appearance on CNN's Paula Zahn Now: "Ann Coulter on CNN's Paula Zahn, tonight 8 PM ET." The text appeared for 51 total seconds during the report, which lasted 2 minutes, 16 seconds.
Sanchez began his report by characterizing Coulter as "loud" and "opinionated," and added that she "ticks people off." He then highlighted Coulter's comment at CPAC and went on to note that in her recent book, Godless: The Church of Liberalism (Crown Forum, 2006), Coulter said some widows of the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks were "enjoying their husbands' death."
Sanchez did not note in his report that Coulter posted on her website a letter written by Edwards campaign manager David Bonior responding to Coulter's March 2 comments. As Editor & Publisher reported, at the bottom of the March 3 posting, Coulter wrote: "IT'S ALWAYS GOOD TO DIVERT BONIOR FROM HIS PRINCIPAL PASTIME WHICH IS FRONTING FOR ARAB TERRORISTS."
From the 9 a.m. ET hour of the March 5 edition of CNN Newsroom:
SANCHEZ: Say what you want about her. She's loud, she's opinionated.
COULTER [video clip]: I don't know, I think Democrats have hit on the perfect candidate.
SANCHEZ: She seeks attention, calls people childish names, ticks people off. And you know what, she'd agree with you -- nobody is so, well, Ann Coulter as Ann Coulter.
COULTER [video clip]: Gore and Hollywood are now telling us --
SANCHEZ: But with her latest anti-liberal tirade, she took outrageous, some say downright hateful, to a new depth.
COULTER [video clip]: It turns out that you have to go into rehab if you use the word "faggot," so I'm -- so kind of at an impasse. Can't really talk about Edwards, so I think I'll just conclude here.
SANCHEZ: But it's hardly the conclusion. More reaction from Congress and from the man insulted, all who think the best comeback is no comeback at all.
EDWARDS [video clip]: I think it's important that we not reward hateful, selfish, childish behavior with attention.
REP. PETE HOEKSTRA (R-MI) [video clip]: We really need to stay focused on the issues and not make this personal.
SEN. DIANNE FEINSTEIN (D-CA) [video clip]: I'm not a fan of that kind of rhetoric, and I really don't want to get into it.
SANCHEZ: But Ann Coulter gets into it all the time, and nobody, it seems, is exempt, not even 9-11 widows. This is from one of her books: "I've never seen people enjoying their husbands' deaths so much."
She goes after former ambassadors.
COULTER [video clip]: He was literally the man at our embassies who made sure the plumbing was working.
SANCHEZ: Even presidential appointments catch her wrath.
[begin video clip]
COULTER: She's not qualified for the position. This isn't like, you know, best employee of the month.
BILL MAHER: But you didn't make that objection with every other of George Bush's appointments.
COULTER: It never occurred to us that he'd nominate, as you say, the cleaning lady. We thought this was clear.
[end video clip]
SANCHEZ: Edwards actually posted Coulter's f-word diatribe about him on his website, uncensored, soliciting campaign dollars -- so-called "Coulter cash" -- hoping to turn the incident in his favor.
Rick Sanchez, CNN, Atlanta.
She is one squeaky wheel in need of trashing, not oiling.
Randy
sir back and watch, the republican party at its finest
In fact one CNN promo for Coulter's upcoming appearance on Paula Zahn's show had the anchor saying Coulter was going to be on "to present her side." She made it sound as though Couter's comments were part of a debate in which there are two sides and both are equally credible!
tomorrow night: "hitler, why i'm misunderstood."
Note to AnotherAmerican: I don't find this funny.
Not a bit.
Why do CNN and the others ignore the fact that Edwards isn't even gay!
And you're right, she's not even funny.
The most preposterous thing about the media's coverage of the Ann Coulter 'f' word gay slur story is that no one is mentioning, even in passing, that John Edwards isn't even gay in the first place. That makes Coulter's remarks even nuttier. Tonight on Paula Zahn was a great example. In her regular panel discussion, the issue was only the propriety of the remarks. But not one panelist even referred to the inaccuracy of the slur in the first place. The net result of this omission-- repeated everywhere-- is to leave in people's minds the idea that Edwards is gay, giving fodder to homophobes and bigots everywhere. It would be as if someone made an anti-Semitic slur against Hillary Clinton, and no one in the media happened to mention that she wasn't even Jewish in the first place. The slur is bad enough, but leaving the impression that the remarks had some kind of meaning behind them is even worse. It creates a residual effect among bigots, racists, and their ilk.I dunno Val. What do you call equal parts funny and terrifying?
New lows all around. Coulter's not even bright or really good at what she does. How many left-wing a-holes have they got calling people names and being that "liberal loon" every one of the righ-wing idiots always complain about? Where are they? Pathetic.
Coulter says Edwards' campaign manager is "Fronting for Arab Terrorists."
If you are talking about David Bonior, he has a well-documented history of taking campaign money from terrorists and lobbying for terrorist suspects and for trying to block the FBI from doing their job. Coulter should get rid of the gay slurs but she is dead on right about David Bonior.
<blockquote>"If you are talking about David Bonior, he has a well-documented history of taking campaign money from terrorists and lobbying for terrorist suspects and for trying to block the FBI from doing their job. Coulter should get rid of the gay slurs but she is dead on right about David Bonior."</blockquote>
Well-documented? Where? On FrontPageMag? Did any of these "suspects" he "lobb[ied]" for end up being innocent? How is he "block[ing] the FBI from doing their job"?
Just curious if you could provide some sources for these charges.
I wonder if Republicans just swell with admiration for her when she speaks. I guess they must, she's pretty mainstream, she seems to speak for conservatism as a whole. She sells millions of books, she's invited to and paid well for dozens upon dozens of speaking engagements every year.
Congratulations Republicans you sure have picked a sterling spokesperson for your conservative movement!
Whatever point Coulter was trying to make, she made it in a most offensive way. This comment will hurt her worse than some others, I think.
Agree Bruce, highlighting this latest attempt by Coulter to get some much sought after exposure will not do her any good......but she doesn't really care about it's impact - she just loooooooooves the attention.
How is it going to hurt her? Just like with most of the ignorant things said by the righty pundits, those who are already fans will defend them. "It was just a joke". They sure as he11 won't jump ship. This political battle is about their honor, backing up their historic support for these wackjobs. So admitting they've been following charlatans doesn't work in their favor.
And those who aren't already fans may dislike her more for it, but aren't going to see any kind of swelling in their ranks. There aren't a lot of "on-the-fence" folks out there that will be swayed by it, because they won't even hear about it.
MIght as well acknowledge it now: you can get rich in this country by promoting hatred. And apologize all the way to the bank.
Who's defending this comment?
Some sterling examples of "idiot fans" here:
http://mediamatters.org/items/200703030002
Although it does look like the most offensive have been deleted. The thread's a fraction of the size it was the other day.
Nice work, Here's an example of offensiveness, but you'll need to take my word for it because it's all been deleted.
Right.
It wasn't about offensiveness. It was about people defending Coulter, which a casual perusal of the previous Coulter thread would make obvious.
And this is an example of your reading comprehension problems. As Pragmatic just pointed out, that thread is still well-populated with Coulter-defenders and that was the example I was providing. The fact that the most offensive defenders have been deleted/banned doesn't mean anything. And anyway, are you trying to imply that those deleted posts never existed? Because I'm sure there are plenty of people here who remember them and will tell you that you're full of it.
Nothing implied........only sloppy footnoting.
I was really wondering if any conservative pundits were defending her but I'm surprised anyone would, in this case.
Oh, no I don't know of any pundits who are defending her, but neondesert was writing specifically about the "idiot fans" who defended her.
True he did say fans. BTW, after spending a week in the Villages, Florida with my parents, I got to experience a true conservative newspaper that featured three columnists, Michelle Malkin, Ann Coulter and Thomas Sowell. I was laughing my a** off. Not exactly what I was used to in Blue State Minnesota.
kind of shows where your head is at. sowell once in a blue moon makes a point, but malkin and coulter are ranters.
I think that was my point.
a "true conservative newspaper" has ranters? whatever you say.
You're right. Poor wording on my part. I was trying to mock the opinion pages choice of columnists.
<a href="[link to mediamatters.org] News is...</a>
Finally, this "liberal" media gives Ann Coulter a chance to defend herself. It's about time. She is considered an extremist on the conservative side, and she should get to make regular appearances on cable television shows like her liberal counterpart Michael Moore, who you can see on cable television.....Oh, wait, never mind. Damn this "liberal" media.
THANK YOU.
njguy93@yahoo.com
It's a conspiracy against fat.
Off with your head.
Subtle, yet violent. Five stars.
I wish people would just ignore her so she'd go away, but apparently CNN (and possibly NBC, and other outlets) isn't gonna let that happen.
Love her or hate her, she is defnitely pimpin' the MSM every chance she gets...fattening her pockets in the process. What a country in which we live.
We've just spent the past 3 weeks with non-stop coverage of the death of an ex playmate no talent bimbo. Paris Hilton is in the news every other day, as is her pal the bald Ms.Spears. And anyone is surprised that trash talking Ann Coulter continues to find her way onto the tube?
Welcome to our screwed up world, and thank the television stations that bring it to you 24/7
Hey. Modeling takes talent. Being beautiful can be considered a talent, I think. I wish you wouldn't resort ad hominem attacks on the dearly departed Ms. Smith.
What?
Talent is the surgeon who implants the silicone. Talent is the makeup artist who hids the wrinkles. Talent is the artist who airbrushes the cellulite. Talent is the designer who designs the clothes and the seamstress who puts them together. Talent is the lighting director who strategically places the lights so that the double chin isn't prominent. Talent is the doctor who keeps her alive despite her continuous drug usage and vomiting after meals.
Oh, but she worked so hard and practiced so long to..... to what?
You must have missed the facetiousness.
All kidding aside, I don't think calling a dead woman who lived a sad life a bimbo is very admirable, regardless of her relative talent.
I did miss it. My sense of humor is fading. Could it be I'm turning into a conservative? Shoot!
No, seriously. Shoot me. No sane jury in the world would convict you for a crime of mercy.
Shouldn't pick on the bimbos. Girls will be girls and we got to love them for that.
You are right. Some surgeon stuffed two silicon implants in each breast.
Somewhere I saw where someone did a graph that showed the world's silcon supply depleting from Pam Anderson. Imagine the impact of Anna Nicole.
There's nothing wrong with a woman who wants to become a Sister of Freya. Cleavage makes the world a more beautiful place.
The Grand Diversion continues. As long as were are lining up for or against Ann's unPC stupidity we aren't discussing real issues like Iraq, where Osama is, civil liberties etc.
its funny the ultra right wing limbaugh/coulter /hannity/ orielly say all liberals call names and they dont then they proceed to call names go figure.coulter has never been questioned in a tough way and never will . msm is afraid because they will be called liberal if you question her too hard
that sad
Glenn Beck got a show on CNN. Not too far fetched to wonder when the nut will get hers is it?
I know CNN is now trying to catch up to the other networks, but do they really have to show Ann Coulter to get ratings??? How about nude juggling clowns??
She'll fit right in at CNN with Glen Beck. They should have their own show: The Muppet and the Scarecrow.
Stop it Rusty I almost choked on my coffee laughing!
Good one though ;-)
I do what I can.
Hope she gives Beck herpes...
I got an idea. Buy nothing advertised on that 'show " for the next two weeks.
I haven't bought anything advertised on that show since it's inception. It's really working out well for me...
She's going to be on Hannity & Colmes tonight, too. Their website says she'll "fire back at her critics," which pretty much promises she'll get sympathetic treatment. I wonder if she'll get a platform all to herself or if another guest will oppose her.
One would hope <font size="-4">colmes</font> would refuse to appear on the program during her interview. God knows he wouldn't ask a difficult question.
Edwards at least went pro-active in his response and his web site fundraising scheme.
The danger for Democrats is that they'll continue with the weak, head-in-the-sand comments of Diane Feinstein: "I'm not a fan of that kind of rhetoric, and I really don't want to get into it."
The right-wing filth media will not be neutralized by "not wanting to get into it." Trying to appear "above the fray" is just not good enough.
Feinstein's response was spot on. If there is anything Coulter dislikes it's being irrelevant or dismissed.
Here response was not spot on. It was the weak response of someone who won't stand up to a bully.
Dignifying gutter insults only legitimizes them. Feinstein knows this about Coulter, the Clintons know this about Morris.......and on and on.
Who says you dignify it? Look at Obama's response to the Australian prime minister. That was pitch perfect. He wasn't cowed, and he didn't ignore it. He was dismissive.
Obama was responding to an official of another country, not some bomb throwing, insult-driven, headline seeking pundit. I would say there is quite the difference.
Nope. I'm not suggesting that liberals go out of their way to bring her up. But if someone asks them about her, as Obama had been about the Aussie, you give no quarter. The "I'm not going to dignify a response" has it's own subtext of weakness and leaves the viewer wondering if the accuser is on to something.
Probably the best thing to do is remind the public which side she represents...and which party embraces her. Beyond that, it's like getting into a puking contest with a buzzard.
Puking contest with a buzzard....hahahahaha that sounds so much like a FOX reality show. that is funny.
I've said it before and it bears repeating. The proper strategy for dealing with Coulter is not ignoring her, nor is it playing victim to all of her barbs. The right strategy for liberals is to simply dismiss her. Call into question her gravitas. Call into question her motives. But it should all be done with a smile on the face. Look at Obama's retort to the Australian prime minister. That's how you deal with it. You don't run from it, you counter it with wit and logic.
This called POSITIVE REINFORCEMENT and the media feeds right into it, given Coulter exactly what she wants, which is attention and media coverage. HELLO, this is the stuff that parents and teachers try so hard not to give kids who are acting or speaking inappropriately. The definition of positive reinforcement: It causes the behavior that it follows to increase. If we (collectively speaking) want her to go away, we need to stop feeing into her actions and IGNORE her. That's my 2 cents worth. Michele
Another spot on analysis of what is "The fuel that runs ANN COULTER"
You don't ignore. That doesn't work. What you do instead is you dismiss her. You don't play victim to it, because that's exactly what fuels her. Instead, your attitude has to be, "Who the hell cares what this woman thinks." They should get snarky if need be.
Hitler saw the passive way that Jews went to their death as a sign that he was right to eliminate them. When you stand up to bullies, their bluster is ultimately deflated. Coulter will spin being ignored as a sign of weakness on the liberals part and press even harder.
In my opinion, you dismiss her very effectively by ignoring her. Why do you think the Clinton's ignore Dick Morris? They never respond to his rhetoric. Do you believe they should take a different tactic where he's concerned and respond to his every personal attack?
Well, thats' your opinion. And you're dead wrong.
I agree Pragmatic Liberal.
It doesn't matter what the left says or does these smear gang thugs are gonna keep flappn' their smarmy traps. Might as well smack 'em back, dismiss their taunts as the intellectually vacant mumbo jumbo that it is. Call them on their lack of ideas. Then present our progressive vision because that is what scares these bullies. They obviously can't counter our bedrock principles of workers rights, not in this era of diminishing middle class. They can't counter our vision for energy independence, not in this era of war for oil. They can't counter our call for universal healthcare coverage, not in this era of staggering health insurance rates.
Most importantly, make Coulter and her horde of misanthropes the poster children of what mainstream conservatism represents. Force the right to disavow all ties to them. If we don't stand up to them the right sure as sh** won't.
Yeah, ignoring the Swift Boat Liars worked really well for Kerry.
"Why do you think the Clinton's ignore Dick Morris? They never respond to his rhetoric."
And how exactly is this an example of your ignore-them-and-they'll-go-away strategy? Dick Morris is on Fox News spouting off unsubstantiated nonsense about the Clintons nearly ever day. Not to mention his weekly Post column and shoddy books that he cranks out.
Or...
You could send her on a hunting trip with Dick Cheney.
If it hasn't dawned on anyone out there, here's a clue: To take Anne Coulter seriously is your problem. I've bigger fish to fry; like seeing Bush/Cheney et al exposed and dealt with in a court of law; getting our Constitution, Bill of Rights and our country back; finding a solution to end the Iraq war and the threat to Iran and its' nieghbors; return our tax codes to the fair and honest system it once was; protecting our enviornment.... etc., etc, etc. The main stream media has a way of falling into step once the real truth is provoked and the American people begin to speak out as a whole. It's not impossible. Richard Nixon was found out and dealt with, amoung others. We, with our progressive attitude and skills to repair the damage already done, have already made a great start.
Like Martin Luther King Jr once said, loud and clear, "Keep your eye on the prize!" Let's not forget that lesson.
The main stream media has a way of falling into step once the real truth is provoked
Sadly, I don't see any evidence of that. But I woul be happy to be shown to be mistaken.
Contact CNN-ASAP on this idiotic scheduled appearance
The only way we are going to get this hate monger off the free airwaves and getting richer from her ridiculous smears is to let stations like CNN know we won't be watching, and exactly what we think of their own journalistic intregity allowing this so called excuse for a woman to continue to promote herself and bottom feed off of people's ignorance.
MM has a direct link toCNN.
Ignoring Ann won't make her go away, because she has her core audience of Troglodytes who think she's funny and will buy her ridiculous books. These are the same people who laugh at Rush Limbaugh's little racist remarks and skits. These are the same people who think Savage is cool. Even without a large audience, she will thrive, because the Right Wing propaganda machine will prop her up.
The larger problem is that so called "news" outlets are giving this vicious harpy a platform.
Nerzog,
Your contradiction is confusing. First you say that ignoring her won't make her go away........then you condemn the news outlets for not ignoring her?
It's simple really:
The people who are her targets shouldn't ignore her. The media should. Two separate interests there.
Oh, so when Ann Coulter and her targets go back and forth with insults, the media should just ignore it? Ya, right.
I haven't seen anyone go "back and forth with insults" with Coulter. It's only the blogosphere and liberal talk radio that rip into her. So, again, you're way off base.
I'm sure it is no coincidence that the anagram of Ann Coulter is: Unclean Rot
I have spent quite a long time trying to find the 100 or so newspapers that actually pay to run Coulter's syndicated column from Universal Press Syndicate. Does anyone have a comprehensive list or an idea where I can find one? I would like to make sure that those publishers are aware of her comments. Thanks.
Now that is a legitimate way of responding to Coulter's comments. Contact those that run her column and express your displeasure. If they get enough negative feedback from their readers, they may consider dropping her column........I would imagine that would not play into her schemes.
Has anyone considered Edwards's response? Specifically, the fact that he put the video on his website in hopes of raising campaign contributions. i'll bet Coulter says something like this on CNN: "You know, liberals love to cry 'homophobia.' Edwards was secretly delighted to be insulted, because he knew they could use that to make money off of people who happen to be gay. Conservatives don't hate gays; liberals secretly hate them and just use them for their own power." That's almost identical to what she's said about the relative racism of the two parties. Just watch.
Classic rightwing projection.
"liberals secretly hate them and just use them for their own power."
Was your ignorance a choice or were you born that way?
Since scientists have not isolated an "ignorance gene" it must have been a choice. That is the only possible explanation, as we know.
Hey, irony, re-read. I think you'll like this post.
"Was your ignorance a choice or were you born that way? "
Sigh... did you even bother to read what I wrote? Specifically, the quotation marks around that bit about liberals hating gays? I was giving an example of how Coulter would probably attempt to spin this whole flap right back against Edwards and the Democrats- funny that someone with "irony" in his name should insist on taking my comment at face value, and equally funny that I should be quoted out-of-context and attacked on a website about how the media distorts information. Let's be clear: I think Coulter is a reprehensible person who shouldn't be given a soap box, let alone appearances on major news networks. Somehow, though, no matter how disgusting her actions, she's able to convince her fans that she's just defending herself against the nasty evil liberal menace. I'm not "right-wing" by any stretch of the imagination- I'm a good bit to the left of mainstream Democrats, and I can't stand Bush. My concern is how Coulter is somehow able to spin everything her way. People here were getting elated, because it seemed like maybe everyone would finally realize what a fraud she is, and I was just saying not to start the victory party yet, because she'd find a way to weasel out of it. And, as Rosencrantz said:
"AND the one Dem they showed was Edwards and they hinted that he's a hypocrit for condeming COulter but then putting the video on his website to raise money."
It seems I was right, unfortunately.
Thanks for telling us what everyone "secretly think". More evidence of the amazing ability of some conservatives to read minds. Astounding.
Is it too much to ask some of you guys to be rational?
Maybe some of my fellow lefties have overlooked the point you are making. At any rate your analysis was dead on, conservatives are trying to cast Edwards' response in some glib self absorbed money pandering scheme.
The best response to Coulter (and all her ilk) is to destroy the vehicle: enact MORA*, and take the Corporate media monolith out! Without that monster behind her, Coulter will become invisible, since she is already irrelevant. The entirety of Repugnancy would be exposed by that lack of echo-chamber; and then we could set about reining in the other crimes of Corporations without the distraction of 24/7 media opposition.
*Media Ownership Reform Act - Rep. Maurice Hinchley, D-NY
Didn't Sanchez contradict himself when he said the following:
SANCHEZ: But it's hardly the conclusion. More reaction from Congress and from the man insulted, all who think the best comeback is no comeback at all.
and at the end of the report detailed how Edwards came back at her comments:
SANCHEZ: Edwards actually posted Coulter's f-word diatribe about him on his website, uncensored, soliciting campaign dollars -- so-called "Coulter cash" -- hoping to turn the incident in his favor.
Coulter's schtick is easy to discern: create controversy with outlandish statements, ride out the buzz, increase her face time in the public media, maximize her "box office" value, make money. Negative criticism by individuals she pillories helps her cause. Imo, Feinstein's et al. reaction is just the right touch.
Organizations, like Media Matters, are the best venues for exposing her. Force Republic pols and other conservative public figures to comment on her hate filled views.
Coulter is a reminder that one should never trust a woman whose adams apple is bigger than her boobs.
I wonder what her girlfriend looks like.
In CNN's defense, Wolf Blitzer today did do a piece where he said the comments were unacceptable and disgusting. Of course, the whole bit was about how conservatives are speaking out against Coulter (not a single dem or the bloggers who broke the story were given a voice)...AND the one Dem they showed was Edwards and they hinted that he's a hypocrit for condeming COulter but then putting the video on his website to raise money.
Wait. Now that I think about it, CNN simply used the COUlter story to push the "noble and fair conservative" narrative.
The reason nobody is complaining about the Cheney comment is simple... nobody likes him. As far as the comment about Edwards there are only a few words I DO NOT USE and that would be one of them. That word is about hate and hate is bad no matter. The explanations put forth rationalizing her actions, words, whatever, remind me of Art critiques I've read and heard; the meaning of the piece put far beyond the artists rational. This doesn't mean the work is nessesarily bad of course (although in this case it would be horrible) but it shows, glaringly, how people talk out they're asses... in this case a trio of asses.
"Classic rightwing projection."
"Was your ignorance a choice or were you born that way? "
Sigh... did any of you even bother to read what I wrote? Specifically, the quotation marks around that bit about liberals hating gays? I was giving an example of how Coulter would probably attempt to spin this whole flap right back against Edwards and the Democrats. Let's be clear: I think Coulter is a reprehensible person who shouldn't be given a soap box, let alone appearances on major news networks. Somehow, though, no matter how disgusting her actions, she's able to convince her fans that she's just defending herself against the nasty evil liberal menace. I'm not "right-wing" by any stretch of the imagination- I'm a good bit to the left of mainstream Democrats, and I can't stand Bush. My concern is how Coulter is somehow able to spin everything her way. People here were getting elated, because it seemed like maybe everyone would finally realize what a fraud she is, and I was just saying not to start the victory party yet, because she'd find a way to weasel out of it. And, as Rosencrantz said:
"AND the one Dem they showed was Edwards and they hinted that he's a hypocrit for condeming COulter but then putting the video on his website to raise money."
It seems I was right, unfortunately.
I think you'll probably get your appologies when the irony in your piece is revisited, but you might want to move your response or re-post it as a reply to theirs so if they check back to their own names they'll see it. Well written and good insight.
Ah, I see. Thanks. I was having trouble figuring out how this thread system of posting worked- I couldn't see how new posts kept appearing before mine. Thanks for your help.
Hey, Jurgan. Did you read my apology? It may not be evident that it was posted to you, but read further down the thread you'll find it.
Yeah, I saw it. Thanks.
Actually, after I responded, I realized that you might have meant it a different way than I originally thought, but since your comment was right next to irony101's, they sort of mixed together and I assumed you were both misunderstanding me the same way. Well, thanks for the apology.
Please, forgive me. I understand your point. I simply should have made myself more clear. I meant to say that you have pointed out a classic example of rightwing projection. Your insights were painfully accurate.
Please accept my humble apologies for my lack of clarity.
As a result of Coulter's remarks, Verizon, Sally Mae and some other company have pulled their ads from Coulter's website, citing complaints from customers and some of them have said that they didn't know their ads were on her website in the first place. Emailing them to tell them about your appreciation of their decision would be a good idea. Emailing the sponsors that are left on her website would be a better idea.
I've written CNN to express my disappointment that they're providing her with yet another platform for her vile words.
Here's some good news:
http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003554127
We need more of this to rid the world of Man Cult-Whore
That is overall good news, but a mixed bag nonotheless. That Schreiber editor guy cites Malkin among his group of thoughtful conservative contributors.
Maybe he hadn't had his coffee at the time of his interview.
"Our community is largely conservative and Republican. They expect insightful discussion of issues. Ann Coulter wasn't giving us that. We have lots of conservative columnists who do -- Cal Thomas, Jonah Goldberg, Robert Novak, Michelle Malkin, among others." -Ernie Schreiber
Nonetheless. Not nonotheless