Ann Coulter Fired (But Deluded as Ever)

Despite transversing time to attend 2004's Democratic National Convention, Ann Coulter has been sent packing back to her temporal lair hidden somewhere in 1992 when someone still thought she was funny.

CBSnews.com (USA Today Drops Ann Coulter)

(CBS) USA Today has dropped plans to have conservative author Ann Coulter write a daily column from the Democratic convention. The newspaper dropped Coulter in a dispute over the first column she had written about the Democrats.

USA Today Editorial Page Editor Brian Gallagher remained cordial to our visitor from the past citing "It was just differences over editing of a fairly ordinary kind." Gallagher explained "We had some different conceptions of what the column should be [funny], we tried to work them out and when we couldn't, we decided the best course of action was for us to go our own ways [with Coulter returning to oblivion]."

Coulter dismissed her dismissal as "USA Today doesn't like my 'tone,' humor, sarcasm, etc., which raises the intriguing question of why they hired me to write for them." It does indeed.

Mr. Coulter has since "published" the article on his website which begins "Here at the Spawn of Satan convention in Boston..." Then gets colorful including such commentary as how he's pretty and Democratic women are ugly.

"My pretty-girl allies stick out like a sore thumb amongst the corn-fed, no make-up, natural fiber, no-bra needing, sandal-wearing, hirsute, somewhat fragrant hippie-chick pie wagons they call 'women' at the Democratic National Convention."

Mr. Coulter is shown here shortly after arriving in 2004, which apparently requires one to travel nude much like in The Terminator.

She has nothing but hate in her heart.
I turn the channel when I see her face on it.

Did i read a quote somewhere where she says something along the lines of: "the bible says god gave the earth to us, so that means its OK to rape nature etc."
Remember this is not a direct quote but I'm sure i got the bottom line here. That was some biblical quote to justify our environmental pratices. What is sure is she used the word RAPE!

LOL that means she justified her own rape, and is not allowd to have an abortion after due to her moral support for all those phoetuses

[edit on 28/7/2004 by Corinthas]

Perhaps the "ATS masses" would like the complete article with the USA Today comments on Ann Coulters first submission on the Democratic National Convention. I also wonder if they will be as editorially iron fisted when Michael Moore is filling the same spot at the Republican National Convention (assuming he will actually write his own material).

The complete Ann Coulter article.

It's even less funny reading the whole thing, and more stuck in the past than I first imagined when I found the link to CBS from that left wing bastion DRUDGE which didn't include her "article" either.

Let me ask you something. Reading this, why did she even go? It has nothing to do with the convention or anything happening on stage? Just her own mind...

"Democrats are constantly suing and slandering police as violent, fascist racists - with the exception of Boston's police, who'll be lauded as national heroes right up until the Democrats pack up and leave town on Friday, whereupon they'll revert to their natural state of being fascist, racist pigs."

Maybe she thought she was covering the 1988 convention:

"A speaker at the Democratic National Convention this year, Al Sharpton, accused white police officers of raping and defacing Tawana Brawley in 1987, lunatic charges that eventually led to a defamation lawsuit against Sharpton and even more eventually, to Sharpton paying a jury award to the defamed plaintiff Steve Pagones. So it�s a real mystery why cops wouldn�t like Democrats."

Are you saying "she did good" here? Did she fulfill her obligation to USA Today (or the truth for that matter) in any way shape or form being that she was contracted to present the conservative view of the Democratic convention happening in Boston?

I expect her replacement Jonah Goldberg of The National Review to blow her away, and quite possibly say something meaningful. Don't you?

Hard to imagine how anyone familiar with Ann Coulter's work would ever suspect she can be sarcastic.

All in all, a bizarre little vignette as the Great Taste and Less Filling parties dish out mind candy to a public that still believes it chooses its leaders.

Oh well, drama and discord will always outsell peace and harmony. And we will always have those witty campaign slogans.


John Kerry: Because He's Not George W. Bush.
A Public Service Announcement from the Majestic 12

George W. Bush: Because He's Not John Kerry.
A Public Service Announcement from the Majestic 12

Edit: MJ-12 PSAs. Mysterious formatting bugs.


[edit on 7/28/2004 by Majic]

Neither Ann Coulter nor Michael Moore have a place "reporting" on the respective conventions. They are partisan hacks, who are agenda driven, and should be confined to the editorial page (or entertainment depending on how you feel about their work). The party conventions should be viewed as an opportunity for each party to put their best foot forward, if they fail then they only have themselves to blame.

p.s. Do you really think about Ann Coulter naked?

[edit on 28/7/2004 by Mirthful Me]

Oh, dear uncle, you are so right. The conventions have become more media circus, less political convention. One wonders how long before they begin to lose enevn more real purpose.
After all, what is there really to do, with the Presidential and Vice Presidential candidate already seemingly official.
Ahh, for the good old days, where things were decided DURING the conventions

Originally posted by Mirthful Me
Neither Ann Coulter nor Michael Moore have a place "reporting" on the respective conventions.

You do support the 1st Ammendment, don't you?

Originally posted by RANT
I expect her replacement Jonah Goldberg of The National Review to blow her away, and quite possibly say something meaningful. Don't you?

I didn't even realize the implications of her replacement until looking deeper. Her USA Today replacement already fired Ann himself years ago from the National Review.

L'Affaire Coulter (Goodbye to All That)

Ouch. Goldberg's criticisms (then as her boss at National Review Online):

Ann at her worst � emoting rather than thinking, and badly needing editing and some self-censorship, or what is commonly referred to as "judgment."

Running this "piece" would have been an embarrassment to Ann, and to NRO. Rich Lowry pointed this out to her in an e-mail (I was returning from my honeymoon). She wrote back an angry response, defending herself from the charge that she hates Muslims and wants to convert them at gunpoint.

But this was not the point. It was NEVER the point. The problem with Ann's first column was its sloppiness of expression and thought. Ann didn't fail as a person � as all her critics on the Left say � she failed as WRITER, which for us is almost as bad.

2001 wounds revisted 2004? To which we may now ask of Ann's wounds...take salt with that?

I've read her piece and I have to say - as a Republican - she in no way should be thought of as representative of the GOP. She is an embarassment and a hate-mongerer.

Whatever in the world caused her to be so angry? She spews toxic venom that pollutes our political discourse and should be avoided like the plague.

Her sneering attack-dog style is a clear sign of intellectual weakness. How can anyone, except those filled with similar hatreds and biases, take her the least bit seriously?

I would encourage all Republicans to denounce her poisonous views. Democrats are Americans, too, remember?

Rant,
Jonah's comments were on the money. Good for him.

As for NewsMax - a word to the wise, go into any newsroom in the country and try to use them as a source. You'll get laughed out of there. Take that to the bank.

Originally posted by EastCoastKid
You do support the 1st Ammendment, don't you?

I do (and have been sworn to uphold that sacrosanct document in it's entirety; both in letter, and spirit while in service to this great Nation), but there is a difference between "reporting", and editorializing, entertaining, providing opinions, being a political pundit, spinning, and being a propagandist. Ann Coulter, and Michael Moore have every right to be at the conventions (let's see if the Democrats extend that right to Ralph Nader today),and write whatever they want, just don't portray it as reporting. I previously stated that their respective efforts would be more appropriately contained within the Opinion/Editorial section than as a news byline.

p.s. It's "Amendment" just being strict, you know.

I, too, flip the channel whenever I see "dear Ann" on the air. Life is tough enough without having to deal with mean-spirited, partisan hate. There's a fine line between sarcasm and just plain mean-spiritedness, and Ann crosses it everytime.
As for opinons of how the demo women "look", I think SHE looks anorexic and extremely unhealthy. I think I'd rather look "corn fed" or whatever term she used. As if any of this blather matters when we are deciding a pivotal election.
I say that the GOP only hurt themselves by having her on their side.
joey
(who is neither corn-fed nor hirsute)

I hope the Republicans keep her.......I think she will cost more votes than Nader skims.

Respects,

RANT, I almost started a thread yesterday with the title "The Crazy Aunt in the Republican Attic." My post was just going to be that picture.

When I first see Coulter on TV or look at a picture of her, my impression is that she is an attractive woman. But if I continue to look, the impression of evil is overwhelming. Look at those cold, soulless eyes. Where is Buffy the Vampire Slayer when you really need her?

Ann Coulter talks and writes the way right-wing nutcases talk to each other when no one else is around. Unfortunately for the Republican Party, Coulter does her talking and writing in public.

Originally posted by Mirthful Me

Originally posted by EastCoastKid
You do support the 1st Ammendment, don't you?

there is a difference between "reporting", and editorializing, entertaining, providing opinions, being a political pundit, spinning, and being a propagandist.

They were hired to provide their unique spin on the conventions, no? (based on their wholly different worldviews.) If they wanted journalist to cover it, it certainly wouldn't have been those two.

Ann Coulter, and Michael Moore have every right to be at the conventions (let's see if the Democrats extend that right to Ralph Nader today),

Why would he? He's supposedly running against them. The better question is if they will invite Nancy Reagan to speak on stem cell research. Highly doubtful.

p.s. It's "Amendment" just being strict, you know.

Duly noted.

[edit on 19-09-2003 by EastCoastKid]

lol Coulter is to politics what the WWE is to sports. She fills a roll and gets paid well. If you took her seriously you'd be an idiot.

Why anyone would PAYCoulter to write or speak is beyond me. At least Moore uses facts in his swayed arguments. Coulter is nothing but ignorant rhetoric disguised as opinion. She fails at even that! Her 15 minutes are OVER! The next moron to pay this dim-whit to open her gaping hole(the one in her head)should be shot!

Originally posted by donguillermo
Look at those cold, soulless eyes. Where is Buffy the Vampire Slayer when you really need her?

I'm sorry Don, but as I read your post my eyes kept straying to your avatar, and the irony that ensued did verily lay me low with much tittering and merriment.

I think I like Smiling Hillary more than Scary Hillary.

As for Ann Coulter's cold, soulless eyes, I think that's mainly the mascara talking.

Criticising her brand of wit? Again I am struck with a sense of hilarious irony.

I would love to see you and Ann Coulter square off. To hell with prior commitments, to hell with political differences, let the fiery intoxication of the grand dance of rhetorical passion sweep you away! I hear wedding bells ringing after such an encounter.

Two peas in a pod, I tells ya.


[edit on 7/29/2004 by Majic]

Ann Coulter is calling Dems corn fed?

I beg to differ: