Reliable Sources panel questioned why Coulter keeps getting invited on television
On the October 14 edition of CNN's Reliable Sources, while discussing Ann Coulter's recent comment that "we" Christians "just want Jews to be perfected, as they say," as documented by Media Matters for America, host Howard Kurtz noted, "[S]he can say whatever she wants, but there's no constitutional right to appear on a television show." Kurtz made that statement in response to TVNewser columnist Gail Shister's question: "Is this a chicken-and-egg thing? because does she get a lot of media attention because we give it to her or does she say things so she'll get the media attention? At some point, why don't shows just not book her?"
During the segment, CNN special correspondent Frank Sesno also said: "I think we have a responsibility to challenge her when she says these things, to force her into a corner, and at some point to say, 'You know what? This is not credible anymore. You don't deserve this real estate because all you're trying to do is outrage.' "
Additionally, National Public Radio media correspondent David Folkenflik asserted that "Donny Deutsch," host of CNBC's The Big Idea -- where Coulter made her controversial comments on October 8 -- and "CNBC" are "looking for viewers like everybody else on CNBC and the cable dial. But I think there is a question of pushing the envelope, and I think there is a question of exploding it. And she [Coulter] clearly seems capable again and again in doing that." Folkenflik added: "The question is, you know, whether news organizations should imbue her with some standing to comment on public affairs."
Later, Kurtz noted that Coulter has not only been featured on cable networks: "The Today show gave her a platform." As Media Matters documented, Coulter last appeared on NBC's Today on October 2. An Internet advertisement for Coulter's new book, If Democrats Had Any Brains, They'd Be Republicans (Random House, October 2007), noted that it is by Coulter "as seen on the Today show:"
From the October 14 edition of CNN's Reliable Sources:
KURTZ: Up next, we'll keep our guests here, and I'll get to ask the questions. Ann Coulter shoots off her mouth again -- this time about Jews. Is it time for the media to stop giving her a soapbox?
[...]
KURTZ: It's like clockwork. Ann Coulter has a new book to promote, and she says something so horrifying, the media obsess on her and give her the publicity she craves. This time, with CNBC's Donny Deutsch, Coulter was talking about Jews -- that is, why America would be better off if everyone were Christian.
[begin video clip]
COULTER: [W]e just want Jews to be perfected, as they say.
DEUTSCH: Wow, you didn't really say that, did you?
[...]
DEUTSCH: Ann Coulter, author of If Democrats Had Any Brains, They'd Be Republicans, and if Ann Coulter had any brains she would not say Jews need to be perfected. I'm offended by that personally.
[end video clip]
KURTZ: David Folkenflik -- good for Donny Deutsch for taking Coulter to task, but why did he put her on in the first place? What did he think he was getting? A polite discussion of the issues?
FOLKENFLIK: Well, I mean, Donny Deutsch and CNBC, you know, want certain kinds of aggressive, brash, almost confrontational conversation on that show. After all, they're looking for viewers like everybody else on CNBC and the cable dial. But I think there is a question of pushing the envelope, and I think there is a question of exploding it. And she clearly seems capable again and again in doing that. The question is, you know, whether news organizations should imbue her with some standing to comment on public affairs.
KURTZ: Frank Sesno, this is the woman who went on the Today show and called a group of 9-11 widows "witches" and "harpies who benefited or were enjoying their husbands' death." And the producer of the Today show said, "Well, you know, she's entitled to say what she wants. It's good TV." And yet the talk shows continue to put her on.
SESNO: She has discovered that the more gas you throw on the fire, the higher the flames. And that works for her or it has worked for her so far. The question is, does she ever step over the line or has the culture of sort of outrageous commentary gotten so imbued in what it is that the media do that she's untouchable? It's --
KURTZ: OK, but what about our responsibility? She's also the woman --
SESNO: Well, I think we have a responsibility. I think we have a responsibility to challenge her when she says these things, to force her into a corner, and at some point to say, "You know what? This is not credible anymore. You don't deserve this real estate because all you're trying to do is outrage."
KURTZ: Gail Shister, Ann Coulter also talked about John Edwards, made a joke about him being gay, using a slang term beginning with "f," then she said she was just kidding. Is there a line that you can cross in our society where you don't get invited back on TV or can you insult Jews and gays and widows and still get booked if you deliver ratings?
SHISTER: First of all, I have to apologize because I forgot my yellow star today. I was going to wear it in honor of Ann. Yes, I would hope that within the context of civilized discourse there would be some kind of line. I don't see it yet. The fact that she can go on and say the kind of things she does, I think part of it that nobody has really addressed that I've seen, is she talks so fast that when -- a fast car is much more difficult to control than a slow car. People that talk that fast invariably blurt out things they don't mean to say. I'm thinking of -- Chris Matthews comes to mind. These people who are on -- these speed-talkers are setting themselves up and it's only a matter of time before they --
FOLKENFLIK: Chris Matthews --
KURTZ: You're not putting him in the same category as Ann Coulter?
SHISTER: Absolutely not, but if you, as Frank said, you put enough gas on the fire, there'll be a bigger flame, and that's what they're all about.
KURTZ: David?
FOLKENFLIK: Well, I was going to say at least Matthews, you know, has a fair amount of knowledge of the political world both as a former congressional aide and speechwriter, and as a journalist and talker. But, you know, the other thing is that this was a conversation that didn't have to go into religion at all. I mean, they were talking about what the post-9-11 world would look like, and she dragged it there very intentionally and very quickly.
You know, the real question is, talk. The problem with cable a lot of times is that talk allows for explosive talk to take up all the oxygen, and that's what Ann Coulter does again and again and again.
SESNO: The only problem with cable is that, in its grab for ratings -- because the audience is diced and sliced so narrowly -- people have found that the more outrageous, the better. And outrage pays. And that's why Ann Coulter and others have gotten as far as they have. And the question is: Does the market correct this?
KURTZ: Well --
SESNO: Does the public say, "Hey, we're going to email. We're going to blog you the way we emailed and blogged Dan Rather"?
KURTZ: Well, it's not just cable. The Today show gave her a platform. Ann Coulter happens to be a very smart lawyer who knows -- who has figured this out. That you can sell a lot of books by being incendiary, and I just question -- this seems to happen again and again and again. All right, Gail, last comment.
SHISTER: I would just say, Is this a chicken-and-egg thing? because does she get a lot of media attention because we give it to her or does she say things so she'll get the media attention? At some point, why don't shows just not book her?
KURTZ: You mean, just say no? Well, there's no constitutional -- I mean, she can say whatever she wants, but there's no constitutional right to appear on a television show. Gail Shister, Frank Sesno, David Folkenflik, thanks very much for joining us, and for your skillful questioning of me.
It is a very good question, why does Today keep asking her on? She insults 9/11 widows and gets invited back. Why does Donnie Deutch have her on? No one watches CNBC , its the biggest joke on basic cable, and to me his is even more of a hypocrite than Today, he had that witch on in July of 2006 as well. I think its time that networks are told if you want to have haters on you can but the public will no longer watch your programs.
Would we tolerate white supremacist or nazis every year or so to come on to these programs to sell books and spew hate? No.
Why the double standard with Ann? She is in the same class as the other haters.
Characterizing Coulter as a "white supremacist or nazi" is both ignorant and unfounded. She is not calling for the death of a race or religion. Apparently you lack a basic understanding of religion, and your emotions prevent you from stepping back to look at her statements realistically.
What will you ever do if Democrats succeed in reinstating the 'Fairness' Doctrine? You will see MORE, not less of Coulter and other conservatives.
Or would you rather take the route of Chavez and completely eliminate the press and let government decide what we get to watch?
Characterizing Coulter as a "white supremacist or nazi" is both ignorant and unfounded.
I would categorize her as an attention-craved lunatic.
Or would you rather take the route of Chavez and completely eliminate the press and let government decide what we get to watch?
Chavez has completely eliminated the press?
"Characterizing Coulter as a "white supremacist or nazi" is both ignorant and unfounded."
Oh my, grab the smelling salts, Ann. It's not as if you go around calling people "camel jockeys" or calling Al Gore and John Edwards "f*gs". So very sorry, Ann.
"What will you ever do if Democrats succeed in reinstating the 'Fairness' Doctrine? You will see MORE, not less of Coulter and other conservatives."
Attn: progressives! the choices graciously granted to us are a) a disproportionate number of conservatives on the teevee, or, b) a very disproportionate number of conservatives on the teevee.
There's no option "c", like an equally fair number of progressives and conservatives.
Oh my, grab the smelling salts, Ann. It's not as if you go around calling people "camel jockeys" or calling Al Gore and John Edwards "f*gs". So very sorry, Ann. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Or say we should torture Arabs as a telivised sport and drop daisy cutters at random in the middle East.
You can call Coulter anything you like, who cares? But the choices of media positions??? Puleeze!
Lets see she uses hateful names and her record is long, to me she is similar to a racist . Words hurt people and when its constant over the years the pattern is set. Read the link below and you get an idea of her hate.
http://www.crooksandliars.com/category/right-wing-pundits/ann-coulter/
Characterizing Coulter as a "white supremacist or nazi" is both ignorant and unfounded. She is not calling for the death of a race or religion. Cannonball
Really ? So Annie saying..... "We need somebody to put rat poisoning in Justice Stevens' creme brulee," " or 'Raghead talks tough, raghead faces consequences.' or “I was going to have a few comments on the other Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards, but it turns out you have to go into rehab if you use the word ‘fa**ot,’ so I — so kind of an impasse, can’t really talk about Edwards.” or ,” that a group of New Jersey widows whose husbands perished in the World Trade Center act “as if the terrorist attacks happened only to them.” “I've never seen people enjoying their husbands' deaths so much.” ...... is perfectly acceptable? Are you sure?
Apparently you lack a basic understanding of religion, and your emotions prevent you from stepping back to look at her statements realistically.
APPARENTLY YOU LACK BASIC HUMANITY PERIOD! It’s perfectly OK when Annie spouts her hate crap. Hey she just says this stuff to sell books’ YOU and those who defend that crap belong in the same boat. BASIC Christianity is 'do unto others as you would have others do unto you'! GET IT! Treat people as you would like to be treated. You spout sh*t, you get treated like the sh*t you spout!
Or would you rather take the route of Chavez and completely eliminate the press and let government decide what we get to watch?
Let her have the freedom to say what she wants but get prepared when people use that same freedom to tell you that she and those who follow her are anti-semitic, racists, homophobic small minded people and we don’t want to hear their sh*t anymore! OK!
one of the best, most succinct, shoot downs of a troll ive ever seen. Thanks Pearl.
Great post Pearlene. How this guy could even remotely defend Ann Coulter is beyond my imagination.
Apparently you lack a basic understanding of religion, and your emotions prevent you from stepping back to look at her statements realistically.
1.) Very few Christians subscribe to the views she ascribes to all Christians, therefore it is she that lacks that "basic understanding of religion" (which, by your defense thereof, is also true of you, Torquemada).
2.) Whether a Christian subscribes to it or not, and regardless of its being a religious belief, it is still a virulently anti-semetic statement and subject to the highest levels of denunciation one can muster.
She didn't say that Coulter was a white supremacist or a Nazi, she said she was in the same class. That's a big difference, and a fair comment. We're not talking about someone who can be relied upon to provide any sort of fair, intelligent analysis. It's someone who is going to spew inflammatory rhetoric, whether for publicity or to express her true feelings, and so she can add nothing of any value to the discourse.
Cannon- It was an analogy, he did not say she was one, she is a hater however.
And enough with the lies of the fairness doctrine. Noone ever said they were going to bring it back, no democrat,-it's only the republicans and the conservative liars on cable who fear having to either tell the truth or give equal time.
Thanks, Brabantio and SSkin. Why are simple analogies so stinkin' difficult for conservatives?
Oh yeah, it's that "absolute" thinking thing.
Personally I am in favor of returning to the fairness doctrine which has always been the rule about a government regulated public forum- like a soapbox in the park. I remember when it was in effect and do not recall any horrors. It might result in less political programs on tv and radio but that would not be so bad. Overly politicizing every thing is a recent sickness in society. We should look at more and more of life without funneling it into a political issue.
You know what the fairness doctrine would do? It would require commentators to label their commentary as . . . . "Commentary". No longer could commentary be disguised as news, such as on all news channels, but particularly FOX. Back in the days of the doctrine, it was not unusual to watch a news program - that actually reported news. Then suddently the newsman would break into a brief commentary - the word COMMENTARY boldly displayed on the screen. Then at 2 or 3 AM on Sunday morning, Joe Schmo would come on and refute the commentary they saw on the news. That was the fairness doctrine.
Extreme conservatives, like Coulter, cannot be countered with leftist commentary - it simply doesn't exist. For example, when she equates non-Christians with all the evils in the world - can you imagine that person at 2 AM on Sunday morning countering by saying that all Christians are responsible for the evils of the world. That person would be as rare as Coulter - and would certainly be viewed as lunatic fringe. Why isn't he or she on all the cable shows? I guess they simply haven't found him yet.
That would make it the Fox COMMENTARY Channel ...
Cannonba11 " She is not calling for the death of a race or religion." Apparently she has in the past with this quote: "we should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity." So stop being an apolgist for her, she is proud of her insane rants.
"Characterizing Coulter as a 'white supremist or nazi' is both ignorant and unfounded. She is not calling for the death of a race or religion. Apparently you lack a basic understanding of religion, and your emotions prevent you from stepping back to look at her statements realistically." - Cannonba11
I'm afraid it is YOU, Cannonba11, who is displaying ignorance on this subject. While Gangleskank's remarks may not SPECIFICALLY quote Nazi sources, they certainly ARE well within the historic norm of anti-semetism. For nearly two millenium, the peaceful, loving teachings of Jesus Christ have been poisoned, twisted, & violently warped by this bizarre & hateful affliction. It has more to do with power & producing social conformity by identifying a dangerous (& mythical) 'internal alien' than any true theological motivations. It has been misused as a justification for unleashing such psychotic practices as segregating, torturing, & even massacring Jews, ever since the time of Christianity's unfortunate merger with the Roman state. The Medieval world is filled to repletion with examples of the so-called Christian world taking violent reprisals against the Jewish community for their failure to accept the "perfected" status that was intimidatingly "offered" up to them. It is a pattern of abuse that has been replicated... whether in partial or in full... up to our current times.
The Nazi's were but ONE manifestation of this psychic disease.
Do you seriously doubt for even a moment that this is Crazy Annie's intention here? Hasn't she afforded you with enough examples of her willingness to spew racism, contempt for all who reject authoritarianism, and calls for violence against those who persist in refusing to toe the lines of social, religious, & political obedience?
Anne Coulter may or may not be specifically a Nazi.
But she certainly is a fascist.
Your post is full of labels and broad brushes. Coulters remarks were purely on a theological basis and cannot possibly be construed to be a "violent reprisal" against Jews. The modern Christian community is one, if not the most vehement supporters of the Jewish nation. Unlike "progressives", most Christians tend to save their thoughts of "reprisal" to the the real fascists who would exterminate all of Israel.
To bring the historical events you mentioned into this conversation is just plain silly. The Kings of England are well past their prime.
Authoritarianism? I just have to laugh at a "progressive" complaining about a central authority controlling as much of the population as they can muster into their clutches. Read taxes, socialized education and medicine, judges legislating from the bench, etc, etc.
SAVE DEMOCRACY, VOTE FOR A DEMOCRAT!
You mean, just say no? Well, there's no constitutional -- I mean, she can say whatever she wants, but there's no constitutional right to appear on a television show. / Howard Kurtz
Just Say No!! The culture of personal responsibility when it comes to the common good. When we as a society must face issues that touch all of us directly, or indirectly, whether we say no or not are the issues our government is meant to address as an expression of our common will, politically, democratically.
Just Say No! Is the Republican, Libertarian, Objectivist way of saying thats your problem, and don't bother me with it, even while the house is burning around them because of it.
I don't want intrusive government, I want sincere, democratic governance that works for it's citizens, in fear of it's citizens as it should.
Republicans say they want small, unintrusive government, as they explode it into taxpayers dollars to their political allies to privatize, intrude in our personal, and private lives, and presume to tell us how to believe in as they begin the next war to keep our minds off thier crimes! All time the hide behind our patriotism like some warm blanket of protection.
Happy Thoughts;
Dan Grady
It's obvious why Anne is on. Because appealing to the dead-end 25%ers is good business, while appealing to the sane 75%ers or the progressive 50%ers is just wrong.
Someone remind me again how the media is in it for the money? This is not how to get money.
She's on the air because the Richard Mellon Scaife machine promotes her; her books are bumped up on best seller lists by massive buys by this machine...
and the tv so-called "news" shows have sold out to the almighty dollar and like addicts are hooked on the quick fix ratings bump she apparently gives them.
Her faux rhetoric is carefully irrigated by the right-wing machine; otherwise her ghastly appearances would dry up like a dehydrated turd.
She's on the air because the Richard Mellon Scaife machine promotes her; her books are bumped up on best seller lists by massive buys by this machine...
Sort of the way L. Ron Hubbard's books keep selling, or, more appropriately, the Left Behind series.
And Chavez hasn't eliminated the press, dope.
This sorry episode says so much more about the networks than it does Ann Coulter. From this point on it's likely that Coulter will confined to Fox, her little own little cable Elba. NBC, CNN and others are likely to avoid her since she insulted many of the guys and gals in the exective suites (yes, it's true that networks have a significant number of people who just happen to be Jewish, although they by no means control the media as some wrongly contend).
I mean the very title of her book insults at least half of their veiwing public and contends that they are stupid. I know it's tongue-in-cheek, but it's just insulting and not funny or original. She is no Mark Twain or Jonathan Swift.
It's sad it took an insult of people of the Jewish faith for the media to stop and re-evaluate their decisions to grant her the publicity she so desperately craves, when she attacked everyone from 9/11 widows to homosexuals to Muslims with her incendiary but tired rhetoric.
No, it's not just insulting. It's dangerous. Tim Rutton has a must-be-read article on it in Sat's LA Times.
http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/news/la-et-rutten13oct13,1,3524320.column?coll=la-news-columns&ctrack=1&cset=true
That shows like Reliable Sources are just now beginning to seriously question Coulter is simply evident of how ratings hungry and starved for substance these shows are. How much critical thinking and questioning is passed over by sensationalism, name calling, and the quest for ratings, ratings, ratings? How little the issues are really discussed or sidetracked by complete garbage is astonishing. We have news sources that mix pop culture consumerism with world events, so we can't discern between Brittany and OJ on one end and what the hell is really going on in the Mideast on the other. Once in a while you see just a glimmer of reality show through and it saddens one to know that those moments are the exception, not the rule. Television is hypnotizing and is being manipulated to build fear rather than serve as an effective communications medium. You would think that some network would figure this out and possibly go for a new tact, one of which would be to a no-BS news service. This may have been how CNN began, yet look what it has devolved into, chasing Fox's cottails, because someone high up decided that this was "the only game in town". We have no choice but to go to foreign sources like the BBC or "hard-left" Democracy Now or Air America sources (hard to find in a lot places, yet which goes deep ) which are sometimes overly committed to factual minutiae, yet which ask the tough questions. All the MSM gives us are sugar coated talking points, often GOP influenced, often utter nonsense (maybe that's one in the same). They allow Ann Coulter into the mix to push and explode the envelope so they can do what they want up to that level of insanity. There is no commitment to any kind of civil discourse or thorough discussion of issues, there is just regurgitated headlines and reundant, parsed, pathetic soundbite news.
It seems like the predictable patterns and habits of the MSM chirping up the far right vomit would be pretty evident b to all by now. It ought to surprise anyone with an iota of imagination why this cannot be changed or played around with or turned on its head. Perhaps it is begnining to be with our new blogotopia, yet why can't the elements of the "liberal blogosphere" (OurKarlRove.com, media matters, etc) team up with whomever they can (Olbermann? Alterman? Maher? Anyone with a clue?) and make a concerted campaign to subvert this paradigm? Progressives need to get back in touch with their Merry Prankster roots and make hell for these callous reptilian megalomaniacs like Coulter and make people who buy their loads of BS think a little more, foremost people like Donnie Deustch or the Today Show or whomever is giving them their soapbox-of-the-day.
Nicely put Hose. Thing is these days it's the maniacs who appear to be on acid.
Creative good humored ideas and acts are always welcome.
Dignified, concise, & directly to the point.
Everything that we've come to expect from you.
Well don, Pearlene.
That, of course, was meant as a reply to Pearlene's beautiful post.
However, it equally applies to Hose's thoughtful posting.
My compliments to both of you.
Ann coulter is a very explosive and high profile personality and as such, if you want some "zip" in your program, invite her. She is a former Attorney and has worked for Justices and is highly knowledgable about politics. She has about 5-6 books on the NY best seller list , so ....here is a ranking personality to zoom up your daily ratins, if this is what is needed to keep on the top.
She is far out, but she is sometimes funny, accept her as she is , or stay lower in ratings...your choice....!!!!
Translation: It's OK if you want to sell your soul to the devil. It will be great for ratings! Who needs a soul anyways?
wow, thanks for the promo jer999 (or is it 666?)
Annie the zipper will zip up your ratings 'til they literally explode, like dung in a blender. Sign up now, and be sure to drink heavily so you pass out and can't hear her awful rhetoric.
Good luck.
She would NEVER have had a best seller without the bulk buys of Richard Mellon Schiafe. She shows no knowlege WHATSOEVER of politics and if you really think the only choices are low ratings or ANNIE Gangleskank you have lost all touch with reality
Ann Coulter is setting "the line" of discourse. The "harpie 9/11 widows" pushed the line. Edwards and Gore were "f*gs" and that pushed it a little more. "Imperfect Jews" pushes it even further. When another media outlet has her on again --and someone invariably will-- she'll move the line up more.
But other than cursory hand-wringing by this media person or that, no one wants to step up and deny her these very highly-visible platforms. Coulter = publicity = ratings = $$$.
Sure, she's pushing the line, but she can't do it without a venue and a willing media that's seeing just how much viewers and listeners will take before they tune-out. Only then will they stop having her on.
Both Coulter and the willing media are pushing the envelope. Anyone who watches her or buys her books or reads her garbage is part of the problem.
She is so disgusting, she lies and vile things come out of her mouth mostly unchallenged. Her ilk got us into a war, stole an election and created a divided America. We will never forgive them.
"Characterizing Coulter as a "white supremacist or nazi" is both ignorant and unfounded. She is not calling for the death of a race or religion. " - cann0nba11
Wow, you really argue against your own point well. I am pretty sure or the Jews to "be perfected" in her opinion they would have to convert and thereby end the religion of David. So while she may not call for their actual death I think it is safe to conclude she is calling for a people to effectively surrender and destroy their culture. My how Spainish Inquistion of her.
"No one expects the Spainsh Inquisition"
Ill challenge your spanish inquizition anlalogy, for their chief weapon is suprise, and I am never suprised when something new and hateful comes out of Coulter's mouth.
And forget the nice red suits, for she only wears cocktail dress black.
The media cracks me up.
Why oh why they ask do we give Coulter a forum?
Probably for the same reason they carry police chases, lost girls, Anna Nichole Smith, Brittney, Paris, O.J...
They figure it gets them ratings.
Then they sit & wring their hands & wonder if enough's enough or if they are to blame.
They are. And they'll continue to be.
Look I don't get my shorts in a twist over Coulter the way some of you do. She disgusts you all the time, me probably only 75% of the time. The rest of the time I'm chuckling.
If they continue to invite her on their programs, then don't bore us ruminating over it.
That explains why there is the problem, of course, but it doesn't change the fact that it's a problem. I think it's a terrific sign to see some self-examination going on within the media...and isn't that what Kurtz is supposed to do anyway?
Now, if Kurtz has Coulter on his program after this, then obviously he's just full of it. Otherwise, it's healthy to see the media begin to evaluate people like Coulter and to understand their responsibility to uphold a certain set of standards.
Pundit: I am shocked... SHOCKED... to learn that there is hate speech being disseminated on the public airwaves!"
Waiter: Your ratings, sir.
Pundit: Why, thank you.
Here's looking at you, Mescal
You gave me the best intentional laugh of the day. Thank you!
Coulter's modus operandi is saying or writing the most contemptible, shocking and vulgar things she can think of to stir controversy in order to MAKE MONEY!
She is neither intelligent nor perceptive, just loud, ugly and rude, and she has made a lucrative business pandering to the lowest, most uneducated form of humanity.
Shows that book her want to draw her followers who are right wing hatemongers who think she is some kind of oracle.
I agree.
It is media capitalism at its worst... & at its most predictable.
Then again, 12,000,000,000 flies can't be wrong.
I have written to the Today Show to tell them that Good Morning America will do just fine, thank you, until they nix Anne Coulter from their airwaves. I don't need to hear her mean, nasty words first thing in the morning. It gets the day off to a negative start! So, if they can't make good decisions about who they air, I guess I'm going to have to do it for them. If you don't like Anne Coulter on NBC, let them know it!
There is nothing to fear from Coulter, in fact she is a national treasure in the same vein as Molly Ivans or Frank Rich. All that the democrat party needs to do is come up with some matching witty quips from intellegant individuals and get them on TV to make political dialogue more interesting. I've always enjoyed politics as blood sport and cant't stand whiners who can't stand the heat. What are you afraid of? Match Coulter quip for quip with a nasty leftist attack shill. There are plenty of them out there.
So what about all those right-wingers who whine about people like Michael Moore, who doesn't say anything even remotely as radical as Coulter does?
What a joke. As if we should just quit complaining and accept Coulter, and then when we send out some flamethrower of our own, right-wingers won't scream like hell over everything that person says. Of course they would. They tried to get Rosie O'Donnell fired, you don't think they would protest and boycott someone worse? Please.
You mean Democratic Party. There is no such thing as 'Democrat' Party. Thank you for taking note of that fact. :)
The horror of the Bleob
There is nothing to fear from Coulter, in fact she is a national treasure in the same vein as Molly Ivans [sic] or Frank Rich.
One man's trash, I suppose.
All that the democrat [sic] party needs to do is come up with some matching witty quips from intellegant [sic!] individuals and get them on TV to make political dialogue more interesting.
Well, first of all, Coulter's comments are witless, so there's no need to "match" them. Second, it's not that people can't match her, but those that can don't get that kind of easy television exposure she gets whenever she churns out another hate-fest in a binder.
I've always enjoyed politics as blood sport and cant't [sic] stand whiners who can't stand the heat. What are you afraid of?
Us? No one, least of all Coulter and her apologists. The point is that television news producers, perhaps because of their fear of being labeled liberals, cave in and give this woman all the exposure she could want, and much more than she deserves.
Match Coulter quip for quip with a nasty leftist attack shill. There are plenty of them out there.
Name a few. My first guess is that you'll name Michael Moore. Well, guess what? Moore has a chapter in his book "Dude, Where's my Country?" that explains how to reason with conservatives, and the first thing he advises is admit when the other person is right. Coulter, on the other hand, has had an entire book called "How to Talk with a Liberal (if you must)," and 'jokes' that one should do so with a baseball bat. Where's the equivalence?
But thank you for admitting that Coulter is a "nasty attack shill"; that's refreshingly honest of you.
"All that the democrat party needs to do is come up with some matching witty quips from intellegant individuals"
No, Coulter has proven many times that she's a woefully inadequate "match" for an intelligent Democrat from the Democratic party.
But thanks for your deep "concern".
No there arent. Mentioning Annie Gangleskank in the same sentence as Molly Ivins is like mentioning your high School baseball coach in a comparison with Barry Bonds. And if you are so ignorant you dont even know the name of the largest political party in the US then the rest of the inanity of your post makes sense.
It's kind of a sad commentary on the state if political discourse that she is taken seriously at all. It's bad enough that she is harassing a Presidential candidate's family; it's bad enough that she is an antisemite; but what really stinks about her is that she's got nothing to say. She has no ideas of her own.
Her whole schtick is how awful it is that dem mean ole' liberals are being so mean to her. Even the slightest criticism sends her into a paroxym of rage--- even though she should expect criticism given the fact that she write long book accusing half of the American electorate of being traitors.
Well, isn't it interesting that Secretariat Coulter could insult liberals, gays, Democrats, war opponents, etc., for years; but the first time she says something against Jews, the MSM has conniption fits? Now exactly what is that supposed to teach me?
"Characterizing Coulter as a "white supremacist or nazi" is both ignorant and unfounded."Of course I'm sure you are right, BUT similar to what the “meaning of is is" we must ask, just what is a Nazi.
The Nazi party was actually a fascist movement, so in a sense we must ask is Ann a fascist? I’ll report and you decide
My libertarian friends are probably getting a little upset now but I think that's because they never appreciate the benefits of local fascism."---Ann Coulter MSNBC 2/8/97
I was looking at a row of Coulter books lined up in the bookstore and noted how she is dressed in a black low cut dress on the cover of each one. I guess that is for the purpose of showing her intellectual bona fides.
Yes, isn't it a mystery. For that matter, how does the tv circus get an oped media commentary in the LA Times? Sure enough, the media monopoly consolidation is friendly to spam advertisement of an approved bent.
http://www.freewebs.com/writingindependence/LATimesRutten.pdf
Say 'no' to Kosher-Coulter-Kulture.
To all,
Why is there such outrage over Ann's remarks? Sure, she proved she is no theologian when she used the word "perfected," yet all Christians should desire for all people to be Christians. Why is that "so" shocking? Have people forgotten that in the view of Christianity, Jesus is God, Lord and Savior of every person that has ever lived and ever will live?
Ann botched the way she presented it, yet at the core Christians are called to make Christians of everyone.