Has Ann Coulter Hit Her Tipping Point?

AP ^

[doesnt suffer fools gladly]

Has Ann Coulter Hit Her Tipping Point?

By DAVID BAUDER

NEW YORK (AP) - Ann Coulter has been a reliable name for years among people who plan television news shows - an attractive, articulate blonde conservative who's made a living lobbing verbal bombs.

Following her use of a gay slur about Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards this month during remarks to the Conservative Political Action Conference, some on TV are wondering whether her shelf life is expiring.

Many were angered by her use of the "f-word". Coulter later said she considered it a "schoolyard taunt." She said it was a joke about "Grey's Anatomy" actor Isaiah Washington saying he would seek counseling after using the word to refer to a fellow actor.

At least four daily newspapers have dropped Coulter as a columnist, citing her comment about Edwards.

Head-turning remarks are hardly anything new for the author of "Godless: The Church of Liberalism" and "How to Talk to a Liberal (If You Must)." In "Godless" last year, she wrote of World Trade Center widows: "I've never seen people enjoying their husbands' deaths so much."

"It's a world of 'are you talking about me? are you talking about me?'" said Steve Friedman, executive producer of "The Early Show" on CBS. "And eventually you have to get more and more outrageous to be talked about. One day you cross the line and become persona non grata. I think she's getting close. I think Bill Maher is getting close."

Friedman has no plans to book Coulter on his show, but said he had no plans even before her Edwards comment.

Some people on NBC's "Today" show didn't want to see Coulter before she was booked to talk about "Godless" last summer, said Jim Bell, the show's executive producer.

He overruled them. Having only certain points of view would make for a bland program, he said. Since Coulter is a best-selling author, clearly there's an audience that responds to her. Coulter also appeared on a "Today" segment this Feb. 8, debating a University of Pennsylvania professor.

Bell said last week that Coulter's legitimate points of view are beginning to get lost in the noise of being outlandish.

"She sometimes goes out of her way to push some buttons and tends to generate more heat than light," he said. "We love a lively debate, but we would tend to get people who would generate more light."

Said Tom Rosenstiel, director of the Project for Excellence in Journalism: "You do wonder whether she's destined for 'Dancing With the Stars' at some point."

Several conservatives criticized Coulter for her Edwards remarks. Fellow columnist Michelle Malkin lamented that Coulter had tarred the work of people at the Washington conference. She called Coulter's humor "tired old shtick." Tim Graham, director of media analysis at the Media Research Center, said some conservatives envy the attention she gets and dislike how she distracts from legitimate arguments.

"If you got the sense that she was saying things you thought she believed, it would help," he said.

Still, Graham said it would be "outrageous" if Coulter is blacklisted by networks but Maher isn't. The HBO comic angered some by recent remarks suggesting more people would live if an assassination attempt against Vice President Dick Cheney had been successful.

The liberal organization Media Matters for America, which has long campaigned against Coulter, hopes this is a "defining moment" that causes TV networks to turn their backs on her, said spokesman Karl Frisch.

MSNBC once fired Coulter as a regular contributor after a remark she made to a Vietnam veteran. But Coulter has appeared there as a guest on shows and the network has no policy against her.

The remarks "won't stop conservatives from buying her books and her ability to sell books is what drives her bookings on TV," said MSNBC's "Hardball" host Chris Matthews.

CNN had scheduled Coulter to appear with Paula Zahn last Monday. The network said Coulter canceled her appearance.

"We have and will continue to interview provocative guests and ask them tough questions," CNN spokeswoman Christa Robinson said. "We don't have overall bans about anyone. We will book them when we think it is appropriate to do so, on a case by case basis."

The changing nature of cable news may limit Coulter's ability to speak to those who don't already agree with her. Cable talk shows used to be built upon fiery debate, while now there are more shows that take a point of view and depict world events through that prism. Think Lou Dobbs, Keith Olbermann and Glenn Beck.

A spokeswoman for Coulter did not return a call for comment. Coulter, however, did appear on Fox News Channel's "Hannity & Colmes" three days after the Edwards remark and belittled the idea that it would do lasting damage to her. It's a cycle, she said: she says something, the same people become hysterical, and that's the end of it.

It's about her 17th allegedly career-ending moment, she said.

"It happens about every six months," Coulter said, "and you're always there to put me on TV, Sean."

[SerpentDove]

I'm sure you imagine yourself a real warrior. LOL

[upsdriver]

"I think it also showed that being PC is a big stick
beating Republicans into submission.

The gloves should be OFF!"


You are absolutely right!!! And look how well that tactic works on so many on the right!! sickening

[peeps36]

I can only hope the American people get as sick and tired of the constant whining of the gay community.They want to shove their lifestyle in our face and cry foul when we finally say something about it.Gays want to be at the top of a protected class that shouldn't even exist.They act as if Ann went out and beat up faggots, instead of just saying the word.

[Rummyfan]

The Early Show? Today?

These shows have Ann on when she releases a new book, i.e. about once every three years. She loses nothing by losing them.

[BlackElk]

I see your lame rationalization but I don't see what it profits you. You want Ann to be a spineless mushball rather than calling the Breck Girl/Silky Pony the faggot (effeminate male) that he clearly is but, oh gosh, let's not offend those guys who actually put things where they don't belong because they might have so limited a grasp of the English language as to be offended in their perversions. Their moral understanding is, of course, as severely limited as their rasp of definitions or yours.

Meanwhile you claim that your portrayal of Lindsay Graham does not suggest homosexuality but merely effeminacy. That argument sounds fam,iliar but you reject it unless you are advancing it. Your limited understanding of language suggests otherwise.

At least you had the guts to attempt an answer which is more than most of your platoon would have under the circumstances.

[BlackElk]

Sorry. I gave you undeserved credit. Won't repeat. My bad!

[BlackElk]

Enough of a warrior not to shoot our own in the back.

[BlackElk]

SerpentDove: "our" in #87 means conservatives not prissy, fussy, types but conservatives. Got it?

[CWOJackson]

No problem.

My taste in female pundits runs more towards ladies like Barbara Olson. Barbara Olson was articulate and could get her conservative view point across without having to resort to shock jock tactics.

[jude24]

now they've come to question whether people like ann coulter should even be heard. rush limbaugh is another that they do not think should be on the air. i point these people to the u.s. constitution, but they've never read it, nor are they sure it's relevant.

Those are fair questions. Should Ann Coulter or Rush Limbaugh be provided a forum? The First Amendment guarantees them the right to say pretty much whatever they want, but if they want to use anything other than a street corner, they have to either pay for it themselves or please the owners of their forum.

If Clear Channel or CPAC or whoever pays the bills doesn't like what Ann Coulter or Rush Limbaugh have to say, then the owner can cut off their access to the radio network, TV network, etc. - and Coulter and Limbaugh can't complain.

Personally, I think Coulter's statement was incredibly idiotic and an insult to the superiority of Conservative ideas. This shunning of her for her boorish behavior is appropriate and justified.

[ozzymandus]

AP. They're totally unbiased, right? This so-last-week story just gives the Ann-bashers and the whiners here on FR another chance to look like the girly-men they are.

[BlackElk]

CWOJackson: Maybe it is not my bad. You seemed to have confused both sides. See Serpent Dove's #77 as well. Maybe it was that you posted three opinions in three sentences in three differing fonts and that the last sentence seemed to contain a sound opinion which (apparently known only to you) was not your own view.

[Burkean]

When liberals start condemnning the NAACP for giving Isaiah Washington an Image Award and a standing ovation, then I might take their criticism of Ann seriously.

[Balding_Eagle]

What do you think of Roger Ailes joke? The one that got Fox News booted by the Democrats to air their debate?

[yldstrk]

1) She didn't call him a name
2) She did associate him with the word by using it in the same sentence as his name
3) I am stunned to learn that being normal is referred to as being a "breeder"!
4) Homosexuals are not members of a legally protected class in this country
5) The media is trying to make a huge deal out of it by miscontruing and overblowing the comment
6) The media is acting this way because the MSM is overwhelmingly biased in favor of the Democrats
7) The MSM is not big on factual reporting these days and likes to put its own interpretation on what facts it does choose to report
8) The MSM likes to try to influence the outcome of political events in this country

[HairOfTheDog]

All these episodes came out years before Ann made her joke and the left was silent. No calls for boycotts. No demands for apologies. No crude comparisons to dictators and lunatics. Just utter silence. Why? There is no difference between what Ann did and what "South Park" does.

Well... yes there is. They have different jobs. Parker and Stone are comedians, with a late night audience. If that's what Ann wants to be, more power to her, but I don't think she has near the talent Parker and Stone do. If, on the other hand, she wants to be considered a serious political commentator at political conventions and Sunday morning talk shows, she can't talk like a stand up comedian on an uncensored HBO special.

[SerpentDove]

We may not disagree on as much as we might think.

Let's see how much we agree on.

1) I believe that the PC police have tried to hijack free speech, and the idea of sending someone to "rehab" is absolutely asinine, and is a harbinger of really bad things in the future if we don't nip it in the bud. I really do believe that.

2) I believe there is a radical homosexual agenda which threatens to destroy the fabric of society, and which threatens to undermine us as a nation. I honestly believe that as well.

3) I believe our so-called conservative leadership has failed us in representing the conservative base, has ignored us, and fails to give voice to our concerns. I believe this also, and it makes me boiling mad. All too often they have been cowed and wanted to be "liked" and "politically correct." And as a result, the Republican party is not at all what it once was when I began voting (starting with Ronald Reagan).

I believe this enormous frustration is reaching groundswell proportions, as it should. Almost revolutionary proportions. I share in this frustration, I can't tell you how much.

Part of this frustration is why I created the Lindsey Graham graphic. To me he epitomizes weak leadership in so many ways.

Along comes Ann Coulter, and makes the remark we know so well.

Here is the problem I have with it, and we can agree to disagree and save some bantering back and forth if you like:

• It is ineffective (IMHO). If she had said flat out that PC thought police will not be tolerated, that the Isaiah Washinton incident is reminiscent of Soviets sending citizens to reeducation camps , and that the homosexual agenda is what it is, I would be singing her praises the loudest. Because that's what I believe.

• Instead, she used a convoluted joke (and yes, I got it the first time I heard it) to refer to the incident.

Here is where we may disagree, but only in tactics, not in overall goals:

I believe by drawing John Edwards in the joke, (where if you strip away the substance of what was being *rightly criticized*, did not relate to him), she made an unfair accusation, and it was below the belt and bad form. I can't STAND John Edwards politically. I believe he is a charlatan and a danger to our nation. But her joke was not grounded in truth about his sexuality...it's like she she just put him in there because she needed a placeholder.

And I believe Ann is bombastic in order to get herself noticed, which is fine and dandy. But (IMHO) therer is a time and place for everything, and again (IMHO) this wasn't it.

There is so much SUBSTANCE we can use against them. That's all.

I think we only disagree on tactics, not the final goal. Am I far off?

[Nuc1]

"Ann tries to be outrageous for attention."

I disagree. I think Ann does this to point up the ridicules double standard that lets the left say/do anything while vilifying the right for anything and nothing. I also think she has contempt for people that dish it out but can't take it. Oh yes, PC sucks!

[SerpentDove]

>>What do you think of Roger Ailes joke? The one that got Fox News booted by the Democrats to air their debate?<<

I missed it. I am trying to find it on FR. Can you post it? THX

[BerryDingle]

I don't. I hope CPAC invites R. Lee Ermy the next time and he doesn't do a series of jokes.