Par for the course for dear old Annie.

I’m so glad that our major media refuse to give air time to hateful, unbalanced, and shrill people like, say, Glenn Greenwald. They do have standards to uphold–and letting Mann Coulter spout about grieving widows is the only way they can ensure an uplifting and civilized discourse.

Ahh, just accept she’s a professional wingnut who has to keep ratcheting up the wingnuttiness to stay relevant in her chosen field. I doubt she believes even 5% of the putrid, semi-digested dog shit she vomits. But she can’t backtrack. If she backtracks she’ll lose her audience.

I’m just trying to establish a scale of evil, is she as evil as the Yankees (who won again last night)?

Just another night of Manny being Manny (getting thrown out – by Damon of all people – trying in vain to stretch a single into a double, getting picked off, and then coming up a few inches short in the clutch). Huzzah!

Much

edits:

Manny was doubled off, not picked off.

and that should be:

Much love Brad.

I agree. Coulter doesn’t really believe a lot of this crap. It’s just product. It makes her plenty of cash and it gets her on TV.

Of course, that makes her an even bigger scumbag.

But she can’t backtrack. If she backtracks she’ll lose her audience.

But who the hell is her “audience,” anyway? Who hears or reads Ann Coulter and says, “Yep, she’s makin’ a lot of sense”? (OK, that’s a semi-rhetorical question, because I know the answer and the answer is: “The people running the friggin’ country, that’s who.” And that, my friends, is a frightening, tragic thought.)

So Lauer is almost awake on this thing now. Good. But I think that it is time for him and the rest of the so-called news media to come fully awake and start pushing back on these very public wingnuts. I understand that news reporters are supposed to remain objective and just report the news — and Ann Coulter flying off the rails is arguably news — but there is such a thing as “too dispassionate.” Nobody faulted Herbert Morrison for breaking down as he reported the destruction of the Hindenburg; but I watched a lot of the live coverage of the September 11 attacks and did not hear an ounce of emotion from the reporters. A lot of “We don’t really know what’s happening,” but no shock or dismay over the hundreds of people trapped or jumping from the towers, no “Oh my God” when the towers fell. When did we decide that tragic, disturbing, upsetting or shocking news had to be delivered in the same even tone as a report on the Water Commission’s decision to request a sewer tax increase?

OK, that was a slight digression, but my point is: Any reporter faced with Ann Coulter’s loathsome lunacy ought to be reacting with disbelief and disgust. And if Coulter thinks that indicates bias against her, well, fuck her. (Not literally, good God, no!) She should reap what she sows, and there is nothing wrong with decent, honest people being “biased” against scurrilous creatures of her ilk.

Her blonde hair, miniskirts and tits are the ONLY things that give her hateful spew any public currency whatsoever.

If she had no looks, she’d get no airtime.

Left Blogistan should have a talent contest to find a leftwing professional bimbo just like her.

It could be just like one of those idiotic reality shows.

The media would love it!

Coulter’s argument is that it is unfair for the widows to make public arguments and statements because the right can not criticize these widows.

This is an admission that the entire Coulter agenda is ad-hominem attack. There is no reason that Coulter would ever be stopped from responding to the substance of the widow’s statements — but the use of widows makes the lie and smear tactics ineffective. And as such it is unfair, and should be stopped.

Even Lauer can see that is a ridiculous stand, which says something.

I would like to think this means that Coulter has jumped the shark, but I have been predicting that for years to no avail.

I’m way ahead of you, W.P.E.

>>I agree. Coulter doesn’t really believe a lot of this crap. It’s just product. It makes her plenty of cash and it gets her on TV.

>>Of course, that makes her an even bigger scumbag.

The look of barely-repressed joy in her eyes as she utters her outrageous nonsense shows that she can’t believe that she is able to get away with her bullshit. She knows better, but the dupes in the media let her do it, and she knows they are all chumps.

Why the media she has such contempt for give her a platform, I don’t know.

She knows better, but the dupes in the media let her do it, and she knows they are all chumps.

Why the media she has such contempt for give her a platform, I don’t know.

You answered your own question. The media are dupes and chumps.

She’ll die alone.

I thought the teeny-tiny still screencaps at C&L were specifically picked to make her look like a drunk slattern (not that there’s anything wrong with picking photos like that of Ann), and I thought maybe Kathy Griffin was just being unkind with her cocktail-dress remark (I know, I know – it’s about COULTER — I should relax and enjoy over it.)…

but then I got home last night, fired up Olbermann on the DVR and saw at least some of it in full-color glory, and.. what is she on? Glassy eyes, rollercoaster emotion, and although my SO disputed it, Miss Thing had some kind of ever-so-slight tremor or shake going on. Check out right when she tells Lauer “You are getting testy with me.” I swear, I’ve seen that look, that slight shake, that vibration in the eyes — in medicated psychotics on the street. She has another shaky episode in the Olbermann clip. I don’t think you can really see it so much in the online download.

Good times.

I think she gets way more attention than she deserves, and that includes from us too. It’s a waste of perfectly good emotion to get mad at her; after all, you could be having an abortion instead!

Seriously though: can we stop with the “She looks like a man!!!1!!” thing please? It’s like calling Andrew Sullivan a fag. She’s not evil because she’s single, or looks manish; she’s evil because she cynically exploits our baser instincts for fun & profit.

She’d better hope she never ends up in the same room alone with me – I’ll snap her in half like the twig that she is. (Sorry for the venom, but I really, REALLY really cannot stand that bitch).

Seriously, she is no better than Fred Phelps. Pissing on the 9/11 widows – truly she has no shame.

I’m willing to volunteer to go head to head with the creature. I have a closet full of mini skirts (many are quite tight), a decent grasp of the English language and I don’t look half bad. Honest. Although I’m not blond, but brunette. On the plus side, with just one of my breasts I could snap her like the twig that she is.

I don’t actively seek out Ann Coulter quotes, so I’m not 100% sure, but….does she ever write or say anything that isn’t an ad hominen attack? Does she ever say something that actually has any substance?

Dan Someone said something about who her audience really is — a friend was housesitting for a family that is extremely wealthy (investments, real estate) and extremely Christian, and invited me to the house, a newly built Mega-McMansion. Ostentatious decor, overly precious architecture (Olde Spanish as interpreted by Thomas Kincade) giant home entertainment equipment, intimidating security system with signs on the street frontage, home gym, sub-zero kitchen – you name it. And there on the bookshelf was a virtual library of wingnutty tomes, the entire publishing list of Regnery classics, the Compleat Works of Ann Coulter. Magazines in the rack included newsletters from groups trying to eliminate the Dept. of Education and religious leaflets. The place really gave me the creeps.

Ann Coulter is one of the many reasons I tell people that they need to watch professional wrestling to understand American politics. And I know a lot of people of LeftBlogostanvania are closeted or semi-closeted marks, so it’s not like I’m the only one. Basically, it boils down to the desire to actively suspend one’s disbelief, especially in the face of the grotesque, to produce a narrative that allows one to really enjoy those base instincts.

Oddly enough, the same applies to Larry the Cable Guy.

I dunno. I understand you guys who say she doesn’t believe what she’s saying. And you other guys who say she’s just entertainment. But I’m going to come down on Celticgirl’s side on this one. I mean, sure, even white supremacists get to speak here. Freedom of speech is not for happy poems about clouds and puppies, it’s to protect the speech you hate, the speech where your first instinct is to shut it off. I’m not advocating any particular kind of censorship here, in fact, I’m not sure what I’m advocating. It’s just that level of vile, vicious hate, that kind of no-limits we’re right and you’re evil incitement, that willingness to employ every tactic including lies and obfuscation to create this kind of environment of hostility, I HATE it. I do want it to stop. I would throw a party if something bad happened to her. She’s just way too much…

mikey

I know she’s vile enough that her words alone condemn her to a very special level of hell but her image is worth mentioning as it’s such an outdated and deluded cartoon of the “smart, sexy and sophisticated” image she probably thinks she’s got going for her. It’s not even a basement wanker’s idea of sexy. She just looks like an angry crack whore and it’s not even funny to laugh at her any more.

I can’t decide if it’s all a game/joke to her or not (her Mahr friendship leans me toward the former), but that doesn’t mean what she’s doing is good.

The worst part of this is that too many non-Americans can only make judgement calls on the state of US democracy and public discourse by observing the media (since we’re not there to actually talk to sane, decent Americans). If all we’re seeing are these nutballs whose importance is exaggerated by sycophantic interviewers and whose spew goes completely unexamined and unchallenged, what are we all supposed to think? What are the Iranians and the Iraqis supposed to think? Remeber…they can watch all of this stuff as well.

You come to the conclusion that the US is irrational. And that’s a scary thought

There are so many things that are considered a threat to the nation and are dealt with decisively. The threats to international perception of America’s rationality presented by Ann Coulter, FoxNews and all the other crap out there are somehow considered unimportant. And that’s bizarre.

I’m not calling for censoring Ann. I’m calling for her marginalisation. Her issues are not in the public interest and don’t deserve public attention. And Matt Lauer could have started by saying that “With all due respect, Ann, what you are saying is a complete fabrication.”

And then put Glenn Greenwald on the national media. I heard him speak today for the first time, and I couldn’t understand why someone as articulate and interesting as he is doesn’t get the attention the Coulters do.

Seriously, she is no better than Fred Phelps.

Well, she’s certainly as opportunistic as Fred Phelps. But man, I think he’s actually worse than her. I know that’s hard to believe, but no one’s ever accused her of beating her kids sensless and possibly having the girlfriend of one of her sons killed.

Granted, she doesn’t have children, and never will. And so much the better. But while Coulter is Nazirific, Phelps is the freakin devil. Pure, unmitigated evil in a way that Coulter can only hope to achieve.

I don’t understand why Brad is shocked. I thought you were a professional analyst of this sort of thing. Man up, buddy! She’s just getting started on promoting her new book!

And I really, really, don’t get why so many people keep immediately responding to every new snippet of news about Coulter’s latest with a reassertion that she’s only saying that for the audience/money/what have you.

So the fuck what? Does that make you feel better somehow? Doesn’t that make you a little more disgusted, that there are a fair number of people who may not be tv personalities, but who actually do believe this shit and keep paying her to say it?

If we ever had an American Hitler, there are a shitload of people in this country who would gladly vote him into power. This sort of thing energizes them to come out from under their rocks and stay angry, just waiting for the chance to openly wear their brownshirts and crack some skulls. That’s the point, and no amount of blithe dismissals of Coulter’s motives will cover that.

Mikey, no one is saying that Ann doesn’t have 1st Amendment rights to spout her disgusting philosophy. It’s just that most people who do say the vitrolic things she does are consigned to commenting at freerepublic or have some blog at myspace.com. She shouldn’t have a profitable gig appearing on the Today show and the various cable shows.

As to whether she believes what she says or not, I’m past caring (I have no idea who still takes her seriously; my conservative friends all think she is a joke). I would prefer that she died a slow, painful death, but barring that, I’ll accept her appearing on The Surreal Life, maybe with Andrew Dice Clay.

I’m 100% in favor of Ann Coulter having the right to spew her vituperative guts out, whether she sincerely believes it or is just playing to a particularly loathesome audience. I’m also 100% in favor of the media — including the publishing industry as well as the “news” — having the cojones and integrity to call her on it or, even better, to stop providing her a cheap and easy outlet for her swill. If she were reduced to issuing her rants from an orange crate on a city street corner, that would be second-best. (Best would be for her to just shut the fuck up.)

Mal: And Matt Lauer could have started by saying that “With all due respect, Ann, what you are saying is a complete fabrication.�

No, he should have said, “Listen, that is a lie and an outrageous slander on these widows. If you have an answer to their arguments, present it; nobody says their arguments are unimpeachable simply because of their loss. But you’re not addressing their arguments, you’re attacking them ad hominem for disagreeing with you. Not only is that an unacceptable way to engage in a discussion of national importance, but I personally find it disgusting, and I am going to end this interview right now — and deprive you of this platform — unless you repudiate your slurs.”

OK, I can dream, right?

Mary: OK, you got me there. Fred Phelps IS pure evil. But he’s not getting the kind of media access Coulter does. It is understood that most of Phelps’ followers are actually members of his extended family. Most of the media coverage Fred & Co. get are along the lines of “Look at the fundy whack jobs behaving like total loons”.

But Coulter – man, she is just vile. Sure let her talk – on the street corner, where she belongs. Just please, fer crissake, stop putting the bitch on mainstream television so millions of people can hear her spewing hate speech. And while we’re at it, send Malkin packing too…

No, he should have said…

It’s all good. But looking at her with bemusement and incredulity doesn’t help. For a piranha like Ann Coulter, that’s just blood in the water.

For a little historical perspective, Ted Rall did more or less exactly the same thing to Lisa Beamer and other “9/11 widows” some years back, so it’s not exactly like Coulter’s is the only side doing this. I don’t recall Rall getting invited on the cable talk show circuit when he did it–and of course, the Right was OUTRAGED at his lack of decency at the time. But with the difference noted above, it merely appears that this just a matter of whose ox is being gored.

Rall blogged about this last year. I do give him credit for not trying to distinguish Coulter’s rhetoric from his own.

I think she believes what she says, but that she is very seriously unbalanced. Nuttier than squirrel poop. That the RW loves to listen to the blathering of such a hate-filled loon says a LOT about the RW IMHO.

Here’s one of my favorite critiques of Ann, by an author who’s leaning toward thinking she is a hoax:

Here’s a right wing fanatic who thinks that anybody who is critical of the right is a traitor and at the same time regularly cites Orwell in support of her view! Fantastic! And not Animal Farm, but always 1984, a cautionary tail written by a socialist about a right wing, totalitarian state where dissent is equated with treason. The Anti-Sex League reference is a prime example. Coulter feels that looking at our present political landscape, Orwell’s depiction of a right-wing effort to repress sexuality pertains, not to right-wing efforts to repress sexuality, but to those who oppose such efforts. It’s like Pat Robertson quoting Nietzsche, but worse because Coulter’s use of Orwell is just so fucking Orwellian. War is peace. Anti-sex is pro-sex. Is it possible that she doesn’t see this? I’m not so sure.

I’m not sure either. Ann dresses like a slut, but calls anyone who has sex outside of marriage a slut. She is an enigma wrapped up in a paradox. Or she is an opportunistic cunt. Probably the latter.

I have piled on about Coulter’s rather unpleasant appearance before, and I think it is totally justified. Coulter has milked that skanktastic hoochie style for all it’s worth. It’s the only reason she has any kind of career as a pundit at all. If she was a lumpy, middle-aged housewife, nobody would even be listening and there would be no book deals, no pundit shows. How anybody can think this mannish yet twiglike person is any sort of sex symbol is just beyond freaking belief. I think it is entirely appropriate to make light of her fugliness on a daily basis.

Coulter is the very definition of ugly in every possible way– her appearance, her words, her demeanor, her soul. Let her keep running her mouth. She is only hurting the ReThugs now. Insulting the 9/11 wives? Thanks for the hand-delivered gift, Ann, and fuck you.

My point, at least, in saying that she doens’t believe what she says it that we, as intelligent liberals, should ignore her. She doesn’t deserve to be taken seriously. Yes, she has free speech rights just like anyone else, and we have the freedom to ignore. (Sadly, No! should obviously continue to mock her.) The fact that she doesn’t believe a vast majority of what she says means that she is a glib huckster, but it also makes her less odious than someone like Fred Phelps, who acts on his genuinely held beliefs in a monstrous way. That does mitigate it for me, somewhat. Perhaps the better analogy would be to Michael Savage, who does seem to honestly believe the racist/homophobic/insane nonsense he constantly spews, even if he does seem to enjoy doing it.

The capitalist in me wants to say that if the market doesn’t reward her, she will not be able to sell her products or services. So maybe we can just marginalize her, and she’ll go away, or at least to somewhere where she has little influence.

And can we please stop the sexist rhetoric too?

“The fact that she doesn’t believe a vast majority of what she says means that she is a glib huckster, but it also makes her less odious ”

Oh, no, I disagree. I think it’s equally vile, because she is deliberating spreading hatred for her own benefit.

Oh, no, I disagree. I think it’s equally vile, because she is deliberating spreading hatred for her own benefit.

I consider her to be like a toddler; she has a tool and uses it, even if she doesn’t mean it sincerely. She spreads her bile in a sort of wink-wink way, throwing red meat to the right-wing base. It’s dog whistle politics (a wonderful British term for speech intended to reach only a specific audience). Of course, she also enjoys seeing us liberals react with indignation, which is why I think we should treat her like the toddler and ignore the part of the tantrum designed to get our attention.

Also I said “less odious than someone like Fred Phelps” which is quite different.

Ann Coulter walks into a bar … as prep work for a morning TV appearance.

Ted Rall? Ted Rall? WTF?

Yeah, I’ve heard of Ted Rall. I heard that a while back he said something reprehensible. Since I don’t visit right-wing blogs, this condemnation must have been coming from the…left.

The reason potatohead can’t remember him appearing on the talk show circuit is because he didn’t. Nice comparison there; and by nice I mean desperate.

Because the difference isn’t “whose ox is being gored”. It’s who’s invited to do it on the Today show and the fucking cover of Time magazine!

In the interest of fairness, some guy named Rick Moran (rightwingnuthouse.com) did a post yesterday condemning Coulter’s remarks. Poor guy, judging from his readers responses, I bet he stared at the ceiling long into the night wondering if he didn’t need a new set of friends.

I hate to break this to you, guys, but Ann’s right about us. A tip for the ladies: If you’re going to dance on your husband’s grave, don’t wear heels.

All seriousness, though, how much would you pay to see one of the Jersey Girls kick that bitch’s slats in? I smell a charity boxing event.

I think maybe Ann’s all about projection. Because exploiting a husband’s violent death for personal enrichment and attention is probably just what Ann would do.

Mandrew Sullivan looks like a man

It’s a real shame about her sister and that house.

>Because the difference isn’t “whose ox is being gored�. It’s who’s invited to do it on the Today show and the fucking cover of Time magazine!

Nice way to change the subject. The question was, How Low Can Ann Go? Not, How low can Today go? Yes, there was some condemnation of Rall from the Left, though not much. I just googled “Ted Rall” “Lisa Beamer” and came up with exactly zero critical hits from our side. You can still find Rall’s columns and comic strips, including the ones at issue, reprinted at Bartcop and Smirking Chimp among other places. Here’s an entire Counterpunch column approvingly riffing on Rall’s attack on Beamer. Ergo, the difference we can chalk up to whose ox is being gored, rather than authentic principle. Rall, to his credit, does not try to distinguish what he did from Coulter, here.

In case you wonder, I hate Ann Coulter and I’m also on the Left. That doesn’t mean I’m required to gin up phony outrage. There are plenty of other more outrageous things going on at the moment than what some demagogue thinks of the 9/11 widows.

I’m willing to volunteer to go head to head with the creature. I have a closet full of mini skirts (many are quite tight), a decent grasp of the English language and I don’t look half bad. Honest. Although I’m not blond, but brunette. On the plus side, with just one of my breasts I could snap her like the twig that she is.

I’d be willing, too. It’d do more good than actually trying to, you know, have a meaningful, coherent journalism career. Besides, I don’t wear my minis enough. I’m a natural blond, however, my hair is currently in that pixie cut, which officially negates my cute to the average American male.

Potatohead sed:
“Nice way to change the subject”. S’cuse Me?
I went back and reread your comment to see if I missed something. Your point seemed, and still seems to be that something that some left-leaning cartoonist said *how long ago?*…
Wasn’t that the subject?

I don’t feel it was a change of subject to bring up the airplay issue. Really! Who The Fuck Is Ted Rall? Oh, I get it. It’s one of those Ward Churchill situations isn’t it?

The fact that you, you google savvy Mano, you; could find Ted Rall if you searched for him…That’s just kind of kool…or some’n like dat.

I can find “Ann Coulter” on a coffee table at my doctor’s office.

Oh, and stop with the “we” and the “our side” bullshit. The fact that you’re trying to distract people with a moral equivalency between the two, marks you.

mdhatter,
Now that’s just funny.
One time this extremely bitchy woman came prancing into the local tavern, all dolled up, saying “What do you think?”
A buddy of mine answered, “I think you looked better with your feet poking out from under the house.

Where is that Ruppert guy? Why isn’t he defending Ann? I’m worried. He might be hurt or sick or lost or something.