Skip to main content

Update [2005-4-17 13:22:43 by Armando]: From the diaries by Armando. The love affair between the SCLM and the extreme Right Wing continues apace.

is Ann Coulter.

She's perky! She's cute! She makes fun of Arabs!

The officialdom of punditry, so full of phonies and dullards, would suffer without her humor and fire. Which is not to say you don't want to shut her up occasionally. Not long ago, I went to church with Coulter--Redeemer Presbyterian, an evangelical congregation in Manhattan. The actor Ron Silver had also tagged along--Coulter brings lots of people to church, including, at one time, an ex who is Muslim. Pastor Timothy Keller spoke of the importance of allowing one's heart to be "melted by the sense of God's grace because of what he did on the cross for you." After he finished, I asked Coulter whether she had managed to convert her Muslim boyfriend. "No," she answered, her heart apparently not melted: "I was just happy he wasn't killing anyone." With that, she threw her head back and laughed.

Originally posted to Daily Kos on Sun Apr 17, 2005 at 10:22 AM PDT.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Already in a diary (4.00)

    But why the Sharon Stone basic instinct pose?

    What exactly are they saying?

    •  My bad, I didn't see the earlier diary (4.00)
      "My only regret with Timothy McVeigh is he did not go to the New York Times Building." -- Coulter to the New York Observer almost a year after 9/11
      •  Its already gone (none)
        What is going on with the pose?
      •  boycott time magazine.... (4.00)
        I think we should all boycott Time magazine and send them a message, you can send your complaints to It's disgusting that they would give that woman the media attention she never deserves!
        •  Cancelled my subscription (4.00)
          As soon as I saw this cover I cancelled my subscription. Here is what I told them:

          After seeing the current issue with Ann Coulter on the cover I have to cancel my subscription. I subscribed to Time to stay informed of news, but instead this week I got a right wing version of People. Could you find nothing more urgent in the news this week deserving of a cover? She offers nothing to a constructive exchange of ideas, and your own polls show only 11% view her favorably while 79% do not even know who she is. I have not read the article yet, but I hope you include some of her more hateful quotes so that people just being introduced to her get the full picture.

          •  how do I cancel? (none)

            How can I cancel my subscription?  Can I do it by email?

            The right wing religious covers were almost enough to push me over the edge, but this is the last straw.

            I'm done with Time.  Enough pandering.  By supporting this fruit they're making things worse.

            CANCELED.  I'm never subscribing again.

            Bush is to America as cancer is to the body

            by WSmith on Sun Apr 17, 2005 at 08:36:20 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  To cancel (none)
              Just go to the website <> and on the left side click on customer service. There will be a choice of canceling your subscription and the option of leaving a message. I have already gotten a response from them saying my pro-rated refund is being processed. But, I don't think anyone really read the reason.
          •  Here's my letter (none)
            Not a subscriber - but made it clear that I wouldn't be doing any newsstand pickups either:

            Dear Editor - Time Canada:

            Though it has been many years since I have read a copy of Time Magazine, your Canadian edition this week does nothing to encourage me to begin reading it again.

            Based on the television and print examples of Ms. Coulter which I have had the misfortune of seeing, she brings nothing constructive or intelligent to the American political discourse.  At best she is a vapid conversationalist - unable to subscribe to the very questioning of society deemed a duty of American folklore.  At worst she could be described as "Joseph McCarthy in a dress" - eschewing the very freedoms she claims to stand for and creating a witch hunt or Kangaroo Court atmosphere in the American media.

            Had I been a subscriber - this would be the letter stating that I cancel my subscription.  However I cannot cancel something I'm not subscribed to.  Instead it affirms my need to find news myself on the Internet from a variety of global sources and steer away from traditional print.

            Best regards,

            Thor Heyerdahl's nom de la vie

            "now this is not the end, it is not even the beginning of the end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning." W. Churchill

            by Thor Heyerdahl on Sun Apr 17, 2005 at 09:21:49 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  thanks! (none)

            Canceled my subscription this morning.  My email to bounced back, but I resent it.  

            Here it is:


            Dear editors of Time-

            It was bad enough with your endless Jesus covers pandering to the fruitcase religious right, but with Ann Coulter I'm officially done with your magaizine's tired attempts to curry favor with the about 11% of America who cares about these fringe issues and reactionary people. The vast silent majority has no patience for fear mongers and hate sellers like Coulter, and by putting her on the cover you only further spread the seed of this form of hatred and anger that's literally tearing America apart. Your magazine has done a disservice not only to the readers who turn to you to provide insightful and eloquent commentary on the events of the day, but to the national discourse, which only suffers when fools like Coulter are legitimized.

            Please cancel my subscription immediately. Let me know if I need to send anything else in. You may keep the remainder of whatever I've paid for this year's subscription, and please put that money towards hiring more intelligent and discerning editors.

            I'm very disappointed. I used to love your magazine. Again, cancel my subscription immediately. I don't want another issue featuring whatever right wing subject du jour you've decided to feature polluting my mailbox.

            Thank you in advance-

            -- XXXXX

            PS. I mean it. Cancel it.

            Bush is to America as cancer is to the body

            by WSmith on Mon Apr 18, 2005 at 08:11:41 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  boycott is ON... (4.00)
          I cancelled my subscription this morning.  I really stopped reading the rag after their weekly obsessive reporting on religion and church, but this is just intolerable.
          I think Time is scraping the bottom of the journalistic barrel - that is if they're still in the journalism business ??
          •  Time is doing that too? (none)
            Newsweek has developed just the same problem.  Literally every other issue is about religion.  It's absolutely disgusting.  If I wanted to read about religion there are probably dozens of religious magazines I could subscribe too, and many of them would probably be more liberal than Newsweek.  

            In Britain they admit to having royalty. In the United States we pretend we don't have any, and then we elect them president.

            by Asak on Sun Apr 17, 2005 at 07:43:22 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  My letter to Time (4.00)
          I am appalled at your choice of Ann Coulter for this week's cover and at the tone of the accompanying article. The woman is a hate monger of the worst sort, Joseph McCarthy in a dress. She is not humorous, she is a plague upon the idea of civil discourse and an advocate of violence against those who disagree with her. As a long time subscriber I am deeply disappointed at this serious lapse in journalistic standards.
        •  Subscribe to Progressive Mags (none)
          How about reading American Spectator, Progressive
          Populist,Washington Monthly, and good journals that are aware of our world....New Yorker, The Nation, New Republic, Atlantic Monthly,and so many more.   Time has lost me.  Coulter cover is not only bad journalistic judgement, it's simply not an important story.  But they are trying to make her/him important [in order to sensationalize and trivialize], which is all they've been doing of late.  This week, they totally opted out of credible journalism. They've become a People type of rag.  Much like the movie magazines of the 40's and 50's.  Everyone should drop subscriptions to this drivel sheet.
      •  I wonder if Time laughed away that line . . . (none)
        in their profile. Anne Coulter joking about terrorist attacks, what a card.

        Somebody should write Time and ask if they interviewed any survivors of the Oklahoma City bombing for their profile of Anne. I bet they think she is a laugh riot as well

    •  I'm surprised. . . (4.00)
      They didn't put her in a full length black rubber and thigh high boots.

      Let's face it:  Coulter's appeal to the masochistic wimps in the SCLM is sexual;  She's their political  dominatrix.  

      They know full well that she's bat shit crazy-- yet her vicious, over the top rants make them "tingle" you know, down there. . .


    •  Funny you mention that ... (none)
      I used to call her "the skeletal Catherine Tramell" when I first laid eyes on her. Everytime I'd ever seen her on the tube she would do a sort of exaggerated crossing of her legs.

      I think thats her shtick! Too bad she has nowhere the sexual allure ecept maybe to necrophiliacs.

      "You don't lead by pointing and telling people some place to go. You lead by going to that place and making a case." - Ken Kesey

      by Glinda on Sun Apr 17, 2005 at 08:14:24 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  They're trying to suggest (2.50)
      . . . that Ann actually has female body parts.

      Send Dubya back to the ranch! BeatBushBlog

      by Frederick on Sun Apr 17, 2005 at 12:41:04 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  I thought it looked more like a Buffalo Bill pose (none)
      That was my take anyway: Ann Puts the Lotion On Its Skin
  •  she's a ... ? (none)

    "My case is alter'd, I must work for my living." Moll Cut-Purse, The Roaring Girl - 1612, England's First Actress

    by theRoaringGirl on Sun Apr 17, 2005 at 07:29:16 AM PDT

    •  A Man! (none)
      I swear that I know this for a fact, cuz jesus told me!
    •  She? (none)
      She?  I don't think IT is a She, not that there is anything wrong with that.  
    •  there is a persistent rumor (none)
      that Ms. Ann Coulter is a male drag queen or male to female transsexual.

      IMHO, the reason for the rumor is in the relatively rare pictures when one can see her neck at any level of detail, there is something on her neck that has a very suspicious resemblance to an Adam's apple. I have seen such pictures myself. I've heard that there are other things about her physical appearance that aren't quite consistent with that of a normal biological female.

      Perhaps one of the other readers knows offhand of a graphic to illustrate this.

      Presumably, the Time Magazine article does NOT discuss this rumor. It's not the kind of question that comes up in a puff piece on a woman.

      While it might not be proper, I'd like to see Ann Coulter get asked at every single news interview from now on, "Is it true you were born a man?" She likes "no holds barred" . . . I think she should try it. I mean in a news context, I don't think speculation about "her?" sex life is proper in a public forum on the basis that we'd all have to bleach our brains afterwards.

      IMHO, that question is probably the easiest way to reduce her to screeching incoherence.

      If the rumor hits the mainstream media, I'm sure sooner or later, someone will suggest that she submit to public medical examination to determine her true sex.

      I'd like to see a generation of young wingnuts suddenly realize that they've been whacking it to a transsexual or drag queen.

      Looking for intelligent energy policy alternatives? Try here.

      by alizard on Sun Apr 17, 2005 at 01:35:29 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Ugh. Ann Coulter. Ugh! (4.00)
    The blurb at the Time website describes Ms. Coulter as the "most divisive figure in the public eye."

    Really?  The MOST divisive?

    I bet I can think of a half-dozen people off the top of my head more "divisive" than this delicate flower of American womanhood.

      Tom DeLay

      Bill Frist

      George W. Bush

      James Dobson

      Bill O'Reilly

      Rush Limbaugh

    There!  And that was, literally, off the top of my head in about 30 seconds.

    Oh!  Maybe that was a typo and they meant to write "derisive."  An honest mistake, I'm sure.


    •  She's not smart enough to be divisive. (4.00)
      She recently made a stupid ass of herself in a
      Canadian Documentary: "Sticks and Stones" -
      I think it is still available on line.

      She makes stupid unsupported incorrect statements and
      she doesn't have the grace to admit that she is wrong.

      I'm glad I don't read TIME, this is really puke-worthy of them.

      To thine own self be true - W.S.

      by Agathena on Sun Apr 17, 2005 at 08:11:47 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Oh. My. God. (none)
        THANKS for the reference!

        Here's the link to the documentary. The entire piece is available online, via either Windows Media or Quicktime.

        She is--well, hell, she's indescribable. See for yourself.


        There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics. --Benjamin Disraeli, cited by Mark Twain

        by sheba on Sun Apr 17, 2005 at 12:05:52 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I loved it... (none)
          ... Obviously, she had Canada confused with Poland.

          "I intend to live forever. So far, so good." Steven Wright

          by gsbadj on Sun Apr 17, 2005 at 01:17:15 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  confused? (none)
            Yeah she's confused alright, but she regularly bashes Canada. Perhaps not as fervently as that other asshole Ilyana Somethingorother, but she has a real ugly on for Canadians. Too many liberals and lefties there for her liking I guess. I'm kinda surprised she didn't get pied or something. I have to admit, I'd like to see her and Carolyn Parrish duke it out on "This Hour Has 22 Minutes".
      •  Bwahaha (none)
        BTW, also quoting Coulter from the above-referenced CBC documentary:
        The mainstream media--the old media (ABC, CBS, NBC), the major newspapers in each city, and of course the New York Times nationally, Time Magazine, Newsweek--they're part of the lunatic left.

        There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics. --Benjamin Disraeli, cited by Mark Twain

        by sheba on Sun Apr 17, 2005 at 12:15:05 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Well shit, she's also an asshole (4.00)
      but that's no reason to put her on the cover of Time.
    •  Bring them all on! (none)
      The more over-exposed in the media Coulter and the rest of the gang are, the quicker the public will get fed up with them.  Nobody lasts in the media for very long.  

      Really, we should be begging Time to put her on the cover at least once a month.

      I believe the tipping point has been reached by these crazies.  Even their fans are starting to wonder about them.  Witness DeLay's fall in popularity in his own personal branch of Hell, Sugar Land, TX.

  •  God made the cover of Time once (4.00)
    The cover said: God is Dead.  It was 1965 or so and that is what it said.

    Which led to the insight that once you make it to the cover of Time you're probably past your prime and on the way out.

    That is, unless you are making real contributions to society.

    The revolution starts now--in your own back yard, in your own home town

    by TarheelDem on Sun Apr 17, 2005 at 07:55:51 AM PDT

  •  Divisive (none)
    I bet I can think of a half-dozen people off the top of my head more "divisive" than this delicate flower of American womanhood.

    I'm not sure I agree. With people actually in politics, you have a broad gray area where people can say "I don't like his personality, but I agree with his policies," or conversely, "He may not be the best legislator, but he truly cares about people."

    With Annie, you either hate her or you lap up every hateful word she says like manna from heaven. There doesn't seem to be much middle ground except among people who just don't follow politics at all.

    •  Replying to myself to add (none)
      Even Dobson, Limbaugh and O'Reilly may have some people on the fence about them. I don't know if Annie does. Love or hate (or maybe love to hate), but no "Eh, I dunno."
      •  The opposite of love is not hate (4.00)
        it is indifference.

        The blank space below is how I feel about Ann Coulter:


        To thine own self be true - W.S.

        by Agathena on Sun Apr 17, 2005 at 08:14:13 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  She has to continue going (none)
          over the top, or she has no value on tv.  It's got to be getting to her if she is halfway intelligent.  She has looked very odd to me on tv the few times I've seen her lately -- Nor does she seem as sharp as she did.  I tellya it's gotta take a toll to continually top yourself with viciousness.

          It sure the hell is heavy, father -- it's my grandchildren's share of the birth tax

          by xanthe on Sun Apr 17, 2005 at 11:15:45 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Right, outrage is her only talent (none)
            As for intelligence? Here's a comparison.

            Look at that image of her on TIME, if she were an intelligent person she would have noticed that it is very unflattering. All I can think of are the points, the pointy legs, the pointy shoes, the pointy nose, etc.

            No, she was gushing so much over the idea of being on TIME, she didn't notice.

            Now take Katherine Hepburn. She posed for her portrait 85 times till they got it right.

            To thine own self be true - W.S.

            by Agathena on Sun Apr 17, 2005 at 11:54:19 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  Dominator/Dominatrix of Drivel (none)
            I refused to renew my subscription to Time today, and told them I felt their editorial judgement was totally lacking.  This man/woman who spews toxic drivel can't make one coherent statement, and can only express intolerance, violence and hate.  Actually, Time seems desperate for readers.  What a way to go!
          •  Next stop (none)
            reality TV
        •  I know what you mean. (4.00)
          I keep trying to express how I feel about her but I always come away just abject pity.  I can at least admire Condi for her skills even as I despise her for not appearing to have a mind of her own.  Coulter?  What a complete waste of humanity!  What a sick twisted joke!  I may believe that we all have a divine spark, but I think she snuffed hers out.
  •  My biggest problem with this ... (4.00)
    is that Ann loves attention. Any kind of attention.  She has that in common with her friend Andrew Sullivan. But she carries it to even bigger heights. She craves an audience that could fill one thousand Wembleys.

    So Time made her a cover girl. Oy! She just got her biggest audience yet.

    Andrew will be so jealous. I guess he'll have to actually drop his pants the next time he's on Bill Maher's show.

    If you want to drive Ann and Andrew crazy, you just have to ignore them. In the case of Ann, she'd have a breakdown: she wouldn't be able to stuff enough powder up her nose fast enough.

    "You don't lead by pointing and telling people some place to go. You lead by going to that place and making a case." - Ken Kesey

    by Glinda on Sun Apr 17, 2005 at 08:24:39 AM PDT

    •  LOL. (4.00)
      But Sully seems more intelligent than Ann the Man.  I actually think that conservatism is in a state of decline now.  Look, most of their so-called "intellectuals" are ranting loonies.  Their president's approval rating is down; their political leaders are one step away from jail; and they're out of ideas.

      Perhaps Ann the Man would've been considered fresh and radical a few years ago.  Now, she and her fellow cons are stale.  At some point, the flatulent right-wing message is sure to drive people away with its odiousness.

      When you couldn't get a real journalism job, there's Fox News.

      by The Truffle on Sun Apr 17, 2005 at 08:55:37 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  So how long ... (none)
        will it take the MSM to realize this? Time's clock must be running a little slow. First Assrocket now this "death eater"!

        "You don't lead by pointing and telling people some place to go. You lead by going to that place and making a case." - Ken Kesey

        by Glinda on Sun Apr 17, 2005 at 09:09:23 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  A quote from Lisa Robinson (rock journalist) (4.00)
          "As soon as a trend is noticed, it's over."

          She noted that Time discovered HIPPIES in 1969.

          When you couldn't get a real journalism job, there's Fox News.

          by The Truffle on Sun Apr 17, 2005 at 09:18:12 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Well, speaking as a New Yorker ... (3.75)
            that's definitely been true of The New York Times.

            Two common comments on the "newspaper of the broken record": Its "Style" section should be renamed the "Out of Style" section.  And when its "Real Estate" section covers "up and coming neighborhoods" the rents and co-op prices are approaching their peak and the arty/trendy types have already moved out to more funky neighborhoods.

            (BTW: The Times "Real Estate" section has always been one big advertising section for the major NY brokers. There is no attempt at being objective there at all.)

            "You don't lead by pointing and telling people some place to go. You lead by going to that place and making a case." - Ken Kesey

            by Glinda on Sun Apr 17, 2005 at 09:42:56 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  I agree with your comment (4.00)
              on giving Ann attention (as in we shouldn't--I even used to argue with people who posted Ann diaries hanging on her every comment, but I've given up), but I disagree with your view on the Styles section. In general (with some exceptions), I think the Times does a pretty good job with staying on top of both cultural and fashion trends. Bill Cunningham, in particular, is (and always has been) brilliant at spotting and photographing up-and-coming noteworthy trends. I don't know much about the real estate section.
              •  It's only because I have a 9-year-old (none)
                that I'm aware of how late the "Style" section is on every trend. My daughter comes home with the lastest fad a minimum of 6 months before the "Style" section spots the trend.  

                As one recent example of the silliness of that section, the report on the Olsen Twins being trend setters was a big guffaw. Yeah right! All the NYC school kids have been doing "bag lady" chic for years now.

                IMHO, The "Style" section is for the "Sex and the City" crowd, aka the crowd that has yet to discover personal and sexual empowerment because they missed that trend in the late 70s/early 80s. It's for people who get their own style from others. That's too effing "professional class" Republican for my tastes.

                "You don't lead by pointing and telling people some place to go. You lead by going to that place and making a case." - Ken Kesey

                by Glinda on Sun Apr 17, 2005 at 10:57:43 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  I disagree Glinda (none)
                  I write about fashion and do some trend writing and I think they're pretty on point. Like I said, not always, but generally. As for the bag-lady chic article, hmmm, I'm not so sure what to say about that article. I didn't finish it because I got the feeling that it wasn't about fashion. To be honest, I think they just wanted to stir up a little shit--as the editor for that section is often want to do. I know kids have been wearing grungy get-ups for as long as punk has been around.  

                  So yeah, they don't always hit a homerun by any means, but I'd say once every few weeks, they do some great fashion trend pieces. But even in off weeks, photographer Bill Cunningham, who sets the standard for trend photography, still manages to tide me over. Color me shallow, but Style and the magazine are my two favorite sections of the times.

              •  Sorry for the rant ... (none)
                But the "Style" section is my #1 most hated Times section.

                I didn't even cover my #2 most hated section: the Friday "Arts" section. Don't even get me started on Roberta Smith! And Kimmelman is a good man who should be reviewing music (what he has actual training in) and not art ... or should I say "Art" with a capital 'A'?  The only saving grace to the Friday art's section is Holland Cotter and Grace Glueck.

                Oops! A second rant. MHO!

                "You don't lead by pointing and telling people some place to go. You lead by going to that place and making a case." - Ken Kesey

                by Glinda on Sun Apr 17, 2005 at 11:11:20 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Extra Style! (none)
                  I always looked forward to the Sunday Style section..but more as a laugh than anything else. "SPOTTED: THE DIRTY HEMLOCK ABSINTHE SAKE BAILEYTINI"

                  Imagine my shock when the THURSDAY CIRCUITS section was demoted to a filler in the BUSINESS section, and now there is a THURSDAY STYLES section to be sure to report on the hot new trends that may be gone by Sunday...

          •  ghj (none)
            Hey, have you guys heard of this new "rap" music?

            Great stuff!  It's sort of underground right now, but pretty soon you'll be hearing it all over the place!

            Hey, have you guys heard of this "Ann Coulter" personality?  I'm thinking we should put her on our next cover, before all the other guys scoop her!

      •  At least Sully somewhat reasonable compared to Ann (none)
        I'm glad that he's the moderate libertarian conservative, as opposed to being a McVeigh apologist and an advocate of genocide towards Muslims.
        •  Word. (none)
          Even though I don't necessarily agree with Sully, he seems to be an independent-minded type of conservative.  I'd take him over some of the shriekers and howlers that dominate conservative discourse.

          When you couldn't get a real journalism job, there's Fox News.

          by The Truffle on Sun Apr 17, 2005 at 12:46:14 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Yeah, but speaking for the gay caucus, (none)
            Sully is a douchebag!!!

            We don't want him, no way, no how. He's wingnut slime mold, no matter how you dress him up.

            "I love mankind; it's people I can't stand." --Linus/Peanuts

            by homogenius on Sun Apr 17, 2005 at 01:17:33 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  the fact... (none)
            that he is gay, and is not self-loathing, must have something to do with his relative independence. He will people on the right have it with both barrels when they display homophobic tendencies.

            Which makes me wonder if he's ultimately flippable. I mean his politics, not his orientation.

            ...Freedom is on the march. Straight to the gas chamber. this is infidelica...

            by snookybeh on Sun Apr 17, 2005 at 01:21:20 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

    •  So true... (none)
      ...and she leaked that she would be on the cover six weeks ago-- although she thought she would be on that week's issue.

      Seriously, though, lame. Write those LTEs.

  •  Why now? (3.66)
    It seems that just a couple of weeks ago, I learned on Kos that most people in the U.S. have never even heard of her.  Why would Time care to raise her profile now?  To harm or help her?
    •  that was a Time poll BTW (3.75)
      only 11% had a favorable view of her.
      79% had not heard of her

      i'm not sure what Time's motivations are, but in light of all their recent religious covers, I'd say it has to do with pandering to the brain-dead crowd.

      •  "brain-dead crowd" (none)
        So...AC's really a zombie?  

        Heh.  I don't doubt that.  

        *Note:  I'm pretty sure I'm thinking of this since I just watched Dawn of the Dead.  

        Try not to become a man of success but rather try to become a man of value. - Albert Einstein

        by smugbug on Sun Apr 17, 2005 at 10:25:15 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Dotd ruckin fules! (none)
          best zombie movie ever.  romero's fourth dead movie is due out later this year.  can't wait.

          oops, supposed to be making fun of coulter.  yes, i could believe she eats human flesh...

        •  Not Dawn of the Dead (none)
          Dawn of the Dead had "fast" zombies.

          Ann would definately be of the "slow" variety.

          Honor. Dignity. French Fries.

          by PotatoNinja on Sun Apr 17, 2005 at 04:30:10 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  no no no! (none)
            the remake had fast zombies.  the far-superior original featured your classic shambling shuffling undead.

            i agree though: fast zombies and ann coulter are lame.

            •  Heh. (none)
              Thanks for pointing that out for the "youngins" on the board.

              The 2004 DOTD is the remake of the 1979 George Romero CLASSIC; which, btw, was part two of what could be called a "trilogy" of "Dead".  

              Now, I didn't mind the newer, faster zombies of the 2004 version.  But I have to admit, the 1979 versions were pretty awesome and have stood up to the test of time:  they were more creepy.  In their own, slumbering, "creeping death" sorta way.

              And the gore in the 1979 version is still...well, gory.  

              Both versions are terrific.

              Be compassionate as your Creator is compassionate - Jesus

              by smugbug on Mon Apr 18, 2005 at 06:47:33 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

      •  Does she write under a Time-Warner Publisher? (4.00)
        It's shameless how Time pimps its own movies in its film section. Maybe Ann has a book coming out Time's publications division wants to whore? Got to love the corporate MSN when they're "breaking" the Big Story.

        The Book of Revelations is NOT a foreign policy manual.

        by Dont Just Stand There on Sun Apr 17, 2005 at 10:57:30 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  They did us a favor (4.00)
      They labeled her "Ms. Right."  Good.  Let people see the face of the right-wing party as Ann Coulter's.  Let all of her hate-filled looney rhetoric speak for the entire Republican party.

      We should encourage this.

      Then let's see how many moderates and Independents they get in 2006.

      •  I don't know (4.00)
        I'd like to think you're right about this, but I'm old enough to remember when people said the exact same thing about a new radio personality named Rush Limbaugh.

        People just assumed his hateful speech would eventually turn people off.  

        They're still waiting for "eventually" to happen.

        •  Liberals didn't speak out enough (none)
          That's why Rush lasted so long.  We need to link Ann the Man, Rush, and the other hysterical nutcases to the GOP.  

          No more being nice.  We need to portray the GOP as the party of right-wing fascism, racism, extremism, and hatred.

          When you couldn't get a real journalism job, there's Fox News.

          by The Truffle on Sun Apr 17, 2005 at 12:48:12 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I agree (none)
            People thought he'd fade away on his own.  Kinda reminds me of how Democrats sit back and wait for Republicans to implode.

            If there's one lesson we can learn from Rush it's that we should have raised hell about him when he first started to get national attention.  Too late to turn back the clock, but repeating the same mistake again is suicide.

          •  it's not that liberals didn't speak out loud enoug (none)
            ...the problem is that there are Americans who see the world in this way.

            The talking heads didn't create an audience, they filled a demand for the segment of the society that is full of hate for others not like them.  so what you get rid of limbaugh or coulter?  it doesn't get rid of the deep down need some people in this country have for this shit.  these guys wouldn't blossom if the wasn't any manure feeding these quacks.

  •  what a completely worthless bitch (3.66)
    there, i said it :)

    how do people like her even get -jobs??- seriously. we all know really fucked-up incompetents who somehow have jobs, but it's not like they get promoted. only the boring incompetents get promoted...

    how someone like her, that contributes -nothing- except negative bullshit to the conversational climate, gets a job like that... fire her, -then- her fuckin' bosses, then -their- bosses...

    sirius cybernetics corp.

    •  Scaife pays her bills. (none)

      When you couldn't get a real journalism job, there's Fox News.

      by The Truffle on Sun Apr 17, 2005 at 08:52:06 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  It's called: (none)
      Upwardly Failure.

      Like Wolfie, Crummy Rummy, Tenet, Bremer, and Ashcroft, who could barely get a job until Bushie 2 took him on.

      Hmmm-- who else, Oh, yeah, Lane McCotter: the guy who had to resign from the running the largest private prison in Utah.  Because he had a schizophrenic male prisoner  handcuffed naked to a chair for 16 hours which resulted in the prisoner's DEATH.  McCotter meanwhile, was under federal indictment for a prison he had previously run in Sante Fe N.M..  And yet Ashcroft, in the same branch of government that was investigating the N.M. prison failure: hired McCotter to oversee and run the prisons on Iraq-- think Abu Ghraib.  Promotion  for Failure.

      As per Time and the corporate fringe media: they have no problem featurung Jerry Falwell (and many others), who call opnely for the death of gays.......

      So, F**ck A.Coulter bag and the rest of all those lousy, dreadful, hatemongering, empty media corpses. It's all about pirate radio.!!!! and blogs of course.!!!!!!!

      MSM should be called the corporate fringe media: CFM.

      by jdbrooklyn on Sun Apr 17, 2005 at 01:30:39 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  The heck?!? (4.00)
    Why give her the attention?  Seriously.  What has she done to deserve a cover story?  What is that magazine trying to do--lose subscribers?  

    And right after they buried the pope and ran a story on how to end world poverty.  Shame.

    It's as if she's the only conservative talking head people can find.  Why not get P.J. O'Rourke or Andrew Sullivan?  Someone who isn't batshit crazy?  Someone who isn't a sociopath?  Someone who's got a brain?

    When you couldn't get a real journalism job, there's Fox News.

    by The Truffle on Sun Apr 17, 2005 at 08:51:19 AM PDT

  •  Time magazine (3.66)
    is deeply disfunctional. See

    This business will get out of control. It will get out of control, and we'll be lucky to live through it.

    by Omar on Sun Apr 17, 2005 at 09:04:20 AM PDT

  •  This could work in our favor. (4.00)
    Think about it. The ones who love her will never see the light. Those who hate her already know all about her.  We need to show those 79% of people who haven't heard of her who she and her followers really are.  We should want her to be a spokesperson for her party.  We should want everything that she is front and center in the spotlight.  Ann should be there screaming "mainstream republican" for all to hear.
  •  Love her or hate her... (3.75)
    But love her or hate her, you don't know the real Ann Coulter

    Nor do I give the slightest bit of a damn.

    •  Love him or hate him (4.00)
      You don't know the real Joseph Goebbels!

      From violent rants to random acts of genocide, this mouthpiece for fascism has always enjoyed the occaisonal joke. Has he tried to convert his neighbors? Let's find out...

      Seriously, this is fucking absurd. I'm boycotting Time over this one. The only way in which Ann is useful is in creating a new archtype for the DSM V.

      The Book of Revelations is NOT a foreign policy manual.

      by Dont Just Stand There on Sun Apr 17, 2005 at 10:51:52 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Her Adam's apple. (4.00)
    It's the curviest thing on her body, and bigger than her brain.

    Yeah, that wasn't nice. But I don't care!

    •  Yeah, with that big ole Adam's apple (none)
      she's always reminded me of a boa constricter with a mouse stuck in its throat.

      Watching it bob up and down can be quite hypnotic.

      "Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law." Thomas Jefferson

      by thebes on Sun Apr 17, 2005 at 12:36:55 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Hmmm, may not be Adam's apple (none)
      Maybe a thyroid problem?

      Symptoms of hyperthyroidism (overactive thyroid) can include both anorexia and erratic behavior.

      I'm not a fan of diagnosis via Internet (or videotape, Sen. Frist), but if I was a friend of Ann's (I'm sure she has at least one), I'd advise her to go for a complete medical workup just to be reassured...

      "It's an unnerving thought that we may be the living universe's supreme achievement and its worst nightmare simultaneously." -- Bill Bryson

      by Cali Scribe on Sun Apr 17, 2005 at 01:05:56 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Only if the medical workup includes... (none)
        ...a complete psych exam, preferably in an inpatient setting with Nurse Diesel administering the suppositories to help clear her brain.

        And please everyone stop calling her a man in drag--speaking as a man (although not in drag) that's just icky. Don't blame us for this one! If the Coultergeist is suffering from testosterone poisoning, it ain't from natural causes, that's for damn sure.

        "I love mankind; it's people I can't stand." --Linus/Peanuts

        by homogenius on Sun Apr 17, 2005 at 01:15:14 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  sorry, but... (none)
          I will always refer to her as "Ann-drew" or "Ann the Man," until someone convinces me that he/she is indeed a female who just happens to look like a skinny guy with a big Adam's Apple. The people who buy her schtick hook, line and sinker would probably consider that the ultimate insult.

          If the rumors persist loudly enough, she can just go on her friend Bill Maher's show and prove her femininity by baring it all, live on HBO. She can be the Sojourner Truth of the Radical Right Wing Death Cult.

          that loud piercing sound you would hear is the sound of millions of HBO viewers shrieking in fright.

          ...Freedom is on the march. Straight to the gas chamber. this is infidelica...

          by snookybeh on Sun Apr 17, 2005 at 01:28:36 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  oh come on man! (none)
    I'm going to lose my lunch here!

    she is such a waste of skin and bones.

    Sorry, I have nothing else to add to this conversation.

    by DawnG on Sun Apr 17, 2005 at 10:19:13 AM PDT

  •  re (none)
    I now believe in book burning.... or least magazines...

    GOB Bluth + unknown woman + high school = Steve Holt!

    by cookiesandmilk on Sun Apr 17, 2005 at 10:19:58 AM PDT

  •  She is a right wing evangelical and (none)
    sexually active.  Yeah right.  I believe that.

    Stop the war! Draft Bush voters!

    by NoAlternative on Sun Apr 17, 2005 at 10:21:27 AM PDT

  •  I cancelled my TIME subscription (4.00)
    this was the last straw for me. I tolerated Bush as Person of the Year. The writers suck IMO. Joe Klein seems to be the one "Democrat" and he has been trashing them lately. If ever Barack Obama or Howard Dean is on the cover, I'll pick that issue up. Otherwise, I'll do something else with that money.

    Check out an IMPORTANT 2005 Race: Tim Kaine for VA Governor

    by jj32 on Sun Apr 17, 2005 at 10:26:41 AM PDT

    •  EXACTLY (none)
      let them know how disappointed we are with them by taking our money elsewhere


      pro-life + no legislation = pro-choice

      by kennyc on Sun Apr 17, 2005 at 11:24:08 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Our cancellation letter (4.00)
      We've been getting a gift subscription from my well-meaning in-laws for years, but I don't even want a free subscription after this travesty.  Here's the letter I sent.

      Dear Time Magazine,

      Your decision to put Ann Coulter on the cover of your latest issue is a slap in the face to every Democrat in the country.  If it is true that Ms. Coulter epitomizes the way politics is now discussed on the airwaves, this is not a fact that should be celebrated with a cover story.  For the benefit of the 79% of Americans who, according to your own poll, are fortunate enough to be unfamiliar with her work, let us provide a few examples from Ms. Coulter's oeuvre.  She has explicitly condemned Democrats as traitorous and unpatriotic.  She has expressed regret that Timothy McVeigh was apprehended before he could bomb the New York Times building.  She once told a disabled Viet Nam veteran that it was people like him who had lost that war.  She advocated the execution of John Walker Lindh in order "to physically intimidate liberals, by making them realize that they can be killed, too."  Her rhetoric is so over-the-top and absurd that we have long suspected her of being a put-on, a sort of Tony Clifton of the punditry.

      However, as easy as it is to dismiss the likes of Ann Coulter, we cannot so easily dismiss your decision to pay homage to her with a cover story.  While Ms. Coulter may just be having a laugh with her childish antics, you have a much greater responsibility.  The cover of Time Magazine bestows a legitimacy upon its subject that Ms. Coulter simply does not deserve.  By taking her seriously enough to warrant a cover story (and this on the heels of naming her as one of the 100 most influential people in the world), Time Magazine is helping to push her poisonous bile into the mainstream.  Arguing the need to show liberals that "they can be killed, too" does not make one merely controversial and does not qualify as "humor and fire," as you would have it.  Rather, it makes one a dangerous fringe lunatic.  By giving the cover treatment to Ms. Coulter, you have taken the position (both implicitly and explicitly) that her cheap and violent attacks against her political opponents deserve to be included in the public discourse.  This is a position that we cannot support.

      While we are not ungrateful for the reminder that we, too, can be killed for our political beliefs, we're concerned that Time might use next week's cover to honor Eric Rudolph's unique and heartfelt contribution to the debate surrounding reproductive rights.  Since there is only so much homicidal lunacy we are willing to endure, we hereby cancel our subscription to Time Magazine.

      [Mr. & Mrs. few]

      Not that they'll print it - it's way too long for that.  But I just couldn't bring myself to cut anything.

      Cancel your own subscription here, and let them know about it by e-mailing

  •  She went to church? (none)

    Barry Blitt, New York Times, attached to Frank Rich's column.

    To thine own self be true - W.S.

    by Agathena on Sun Apr 17, 2005 at 10:26:57 AM PDT

  •  Seriously (3.00)
    the only time I ever have a small, tiny thought of this she-man is when she's mentioned on Dkos.  But at least she provides amusement whenever mentioned here.

    And now that see this thing is on TIME mag?  My reasoning behind never, ever picking up an issue for like, the last 10-years, has been validated.

    Hell, it's been validated over and over again for the last 5-6 years.  No reason to read it.  Just like no reason to watch the news.

    Try not to become a man of success but rather try to become a man of value. - Albert Einstein

    by smugbug on Sun Apr 17, 2005 at 10:28:47 AM PDT

  •  whether or not (4.00)
    she is divisive, listened to, or considered bat shit crazy, such racist drivel has no place in this day and age.

    If even a fraction of the population listens to her, it really continues to drive a wedge in understanding the provenance of problems that we continue to have internationally.

    After killing nearly 600-700k Iraqis by sanctions and 100k since the beginning of this last war, perspective is clearly being allowed to slip away or pushed away by the SCLM.

  •  It might be (4.00)
    the effect of the heavy sinus medication I am laboring under.

    But that Coulter quote just popped my outrage-o-meter.  

    That is straight up racsim of the most vile sort, being used to build her public persona as an iconoclast.

    Time Magazine thinks we 'sometimes' want her to shut up?

    We would suffer without her inflammatory racism?

    She is going to get people killed if we don't shout down this hate...

    I'm fucking pissed.

    Visit: pastordan, susanhu, maryscott oconnor, jerome a paris and Welshman at Booman Tribune

    by BooMan23 on Sun Apr 17, 2005 at 10:29:18 AM PDT

    •  I dont think it's the medicaiton (4.00)
      I'm not on anything, and I just cancelled my subscription. I was getting tired of TIME for a while, but this was it for me.

      Check out an IMPORTANT 2005 Race: Tim Kaine for VA Governor

      by jj32 on Sun Apr 17, 2005 at 10:32:36 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  So much between the lines! (none)
      America can stand proud! The Islamic world wanted to date us, but not only were we never really in love with them, but we never really liked them! Sure a lot of religions want to date us, and we go out with them long enough to confirm the fact that we will always come back to our own (and we bring B-list celebrities with us)! Is it any wonder that we're our own cover girl?
  •  That's it (4.00)
    Time Magazine has officially jumped the shark.
    •  They jumped the shark many times (none)
      Some things come immediately to mind.

      -When the crappy America Online (AOL) bought them out.

      -Picking PowerLine as the best blog of the year.

      KISS -- Keep It Simple, Stupid! :-D

      by Viktor on Sun Apr 17, 2005 at 11:23:16 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  she's a bad hangover (none)
    I really did not need to know that when she laughed the fawning reporter could smell her nicorette.  

    The good news is that meter on the coulter sexo-meter is running down.  Kathleen Turner once said that when you start getting older you basically have to chose between a nice face and a nice ass.  Guess annie went for the nice ankles.

  •  I bet (4.00)
    this makes malkin bitchy.
    •  Honey, if Malkin was any bitchier, (none)
      ...she'd be a dog, for krissakes. Comparing Malking to a rabid dog is an insult to rabid dogs everywhere. Hell, they kicked her out of the self-serving sell-out traitors union for giving them all a bad name.

      "I love mankind; it's people I can't stand." --Linus/Peanuts

      by homogenius on Sun Apr 17, 2005 at 01:08:20 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  I just had to make sure... (none)
    somebody mentioned that tell-tale Adam's apple.

    Please visit my webby, A friend said, "I feel like I've entered a slick modern museum of cool stuff."

    by stumpy on Sun Apr 17, 2005 at 10:35:38 AM PDT

  •  Sticks and Stones (4.00)

    (Some days it loads faster than others, but it was fine for me today.  It's well worth it.) --- CBC's 'Sticks and Stones' - 44 minutes.

    Canadian Broadcasting Corporation's Fifth Estate news program takes a Canadian look at the political situation in America, particularly the role of right wing punditary.

    Of course, Anne Coulter makes several embarrassing disgusting appearances.

    And sometimes the camera gets turned back on itself.  It's pretty interesting when they show Bill O'Reilly's response to one of CBCs previous programs -- he literally compares the CBC to nazi propoganda.  I laugh out loud at that inanity.  

    Anne and Bill get totally slammed.  I'm proud of our pinko commie scum CBC.

  •  For the love of god (4.00)
    can we stop buying into this bullshit?  What is this trivia doing on the front page?

    We are just as bad as the SCLM sometimes.  A lot of the time, in fact.

    •  Since I put it on the front page (4.00)
      Let me explain why I did so.

      This Time edition is more proof that there is no liberal Media.

      This is important in understanding that the Media is nothing but shills for the Right Wing, who aided and abetted the lies of the Bush Administration on Iraq, the WoT, tax cuts, social security, etc.

      In my view, it is important that we hold teir feet to the fire as much as we can. You may not like it, but the Media remains an important cog in the Right Wing machine, and we need to fight on that front as well as all the others.

      I believe you adviocacy for an ostrich approach is misguided at best, harmful at worst.

      "Just say no to torture." -Semi-Anonymous Blogger.

      by Armando on Sun Apr 17, 2005 at 10:42:44 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Armando is right (4.00)
        The American media no longer maintain even the pretence of fairness and balance.

        I don't want a "liberal" media, I want one that doesn't stand passively by whilst the President of the United States answers scripted questions from a gay prostitute posing as a journalist and says ABSOLUTELY NOTHING.

        I don't want a "liberal" media, I want one that picks up the evidence that the ACLU has gathered on Bush's worldwide scheme to torture thousands of people and INVESTIGATES IT.

        I don't want a "liberal" media--I just want one that takes its responsibility to keep the government in power (whoever they are) HONEST.

        That's why we're here, on this website, aren't we--because the mainstream media have failed us.

        There are three kinds of people: Those who see; those who see when they are shown; those who do not see.

        by Shadowthief on Sun Apr 17, 2005 at 10:53:26 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  A poison pill from Time for the wingnuts? (none)
        Once past the cover, the issue has a fairly scathing round up on DeLay's predicament. So all the wanking wingnuts who buy this issue for it's cover will get treated to this:
        When Tom Met Jack
        Inside the cozy relationship between Tom DeLay and D.C.'s most notorious lobbyist. Could it take the leader down?

        Sunday, Apr. 17, 2005
        It was congress's holiday for memorial Day 2000, and majority whip Tom DeLay's staff thought the boss and two top aides deserved a respite from the arduous hours they had been putting in doing the people's business. They wanted to make sure DeLay's little delegation had the finest of everything on its weeklong trip to Britain--from lodgings at the Four Seasons Hotel in London to dinners at the poshest restaurants with the most interesting people, right down to the best tickets for The Lion King--at the time, one of the hottest shows playing on the West End and one for which good seats usually meant a six-month wait. So DeLay's congressional office turned to someone they trusted far more than any travel agent or concierge: lobbyist Jack Abramoff. "He ran all the trips," recalls a former top DeLay aide. "You ask where the itineraries came from, who made all the travel arrangements--it all came out of Jack's shop."
        Previous trips had taken DeLay and members of his staff all over the world, but none had been planned quite as meticulously as this one.

        Click this lovely image from the same article to read the whole thing. It's worth it.

      •  But how is (4.00)
        front-paging it on Kos "holding their feet to the fire"?  I'm not being snotty, Armando, I'm genuinely asking how you think this will impact the problem of our corporate conservative media.

        I think it achieves two things, neither of which help us:

        1.  Another front page for Coulter; ah my head will explode from irony

        2.  Glee and triumph on the part of any right-wingers who read here, seeing this "icon" of theirs being treated as an icon by the Left as well

        In what way do you propose Time Magazine and the rest of the SCLM is in any way admonished by our falling over ourselves to be just like them?
        •  I agree. My head is exploding too. (none)
          She gets hired to aggravate the left.  Stop talking about her and she loses her appeal.
          •  Just like... (none)
            The way Kerry shut up about the Swift Boat Veterans.  That worked out well.

            I don't mean to be too mean, but this attitude of right-wing demogogues as "not worth discussing" is shortsighted and wrong.  We as a party have stood on the sidelines for decades while the right-wing built a vast media machine, from Limbaugh to Savage to Horowitz to Coulter.  Yes, we feel good by stating that "we're above that kind of discourse", and those good feelings may keep some of us happier at night while we continue to lose election after election.  

            It's time we challenge these bastards at every level, at every outrageous statement, all the time--if Ms. Coulter wants to be the face of the Party, let's give her all the attention she wants.  I can't imagine anything more disgusting to the American voter.

            •  She is not a politician, (4.00)
              she does not have her own show, she is a celebrity guest.  Her celebrity credentials are based on saying outrageous things in sound bytes to aggravate the left.  

              She doesn't fire up the right. We are her audience, feeding that celebrity calling her a she/man, talking about her drug use, her looks, her latest racist remark, etc.  My somewhat moderate Repugnant relatives know she is full of shit but just love to watch the reactions of the left's response to her outlandish comments.  They can't wait to tell me what she said today.

              Want to see her head explode? Stop talking about her, posting her photos, and watching her. She will raise the level of her outrageous comments for attention and get fired from even more jobs.

              I would agree with you on Kerry with the Swift boats, Savage, Limbaugh, and Horowitz though.  

        •  Because my friend (none)
          It is an outrage that Ann Coulter is on the cover of Time magazine.

          It is important that we point out how outrageous it is.

          The best way to do it is to express our outrage.

          Frankly, I simply do not follow your logic. How do yuo propose holding their fet to the fire? Ignoring it?

          "Just say no to torture." -Semi-Anonymous Blogger.

          by Armando on Sun Apr 17, 2005 at 01:17:45 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  I don't question why it is on the front page (none)
        It's Sunday after all, and the cover story is about Ann going to Church.

        What I question is the idea that the image of Ann Coulter portrayed on TIME's cover is a flattering image.

        It is quite ambiguous.

        To thine own self be true - W.S.

        by Agathena on Sun Apr 17, 2005 at 12:01:49 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Pick and choose your battles (4.00)
        I don't see Coulter as a worthy one. Her popularity is to a large degree fueled by the frothing of left-winged writers/bloggers responding to her every stupid statment. I think the interview she did in the NY Observer is a great example of that. That paper is read almost entirely by hardcore NY liberals--hardly her base, and yet if you google it, you'll see that it received MASSIVE coverage by lefty blogs.

        Let's face it, Ann has even been rebuked by other conservative analysts. She speaks only to a very small segment of the population and she has no equivalent on the left. It is largely the controversy she generates that enables her to stick around. As such, I don't think she deserves such prominent coverage by DKos, much less front page placement.  

        •  This diary is just feeding her popularity (4.00)
          She will smile will glee and get a raise for just the Google hits of this diary alone.  What has been said here that hasn't been said in dozen's of other waste of time diaries and blogs about her?  All this talking about her is what got her picture on the cover of Time.

          If I had my way there would be a -1 troll rating for just mentioning her.  It removes the comment and suspends posting privilleges for 3 days.

          All the thoughtful diaries flying off the page today and we are subjected to this nonevent on the front page no less.  Who on this site doesn't already know there is no such thing as the liberal media?

          •  New ratings (none)
            1 = unproductive
            0 = supertroll
            -1 = mentions Ann Coulter?

            What color are your pajamas?

            by Unstable Isotope on Sun Apr 17, 2005 at 04:33:55 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  We can call it Godwin's Second Law: (none)
              The first mention of Ann Coulter ends a thread.

              "You don't lead by pointing and telling people some place to go. You lead by going to that place and making a case." - Ken Kesey

              by Glinda on Sun Apr 17, 2005 at 11:01:10 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

          •  The is issue is Time - forget her. (none)
            You're right Ted.

            what bothers me is not her, you can get that kind of HATE right now by turning on the radio.

            The issue is not her...forget about her...

            Rather it Time. How any so-called news mag coddle and attempt to elevate and sanitize someone (anyone - she's irrelvant) who advocated bombing the NYT building and violence against President Clinton.  

            And while I agree with Time's Point of View less then half of the time, at least they were respectible.  I mean even National Review Fired her.  This would be like Time honoring "The Turner Diaries" with a book award.  The issue is Time taking leave of her senses.. and slanting so far to the right.

        •  So what? (none)
          "Let's face it, Ann has even been rebuked by other conservative analysts. She speaks only to a very small segment of the population and she has no equivalent on the left."

          Who cares if "conservative analysts" have rebuked Coulter?  Has anybody asked Bush to rebuke her?  Delay?  Frist?  McCain? Arnold? Any elected official?  We need to make Ann the face of the Party that she so desparately wants to be, and we need to make sure that the 79% of people who don't know who she is get a DAMN good taste of what she is all about.

          And as for the argument that she "has no equivalent on the left", you are correct in terms of the actual vitriol that comes out anybody on our side.  But perception-wise, being labeled the "Party of Michael Moore" turned off at least a few swing voters last cycle.  I guaran-damn-tee you that the more people think the GOP is the "Party of Ann Coulter", the closer we are to taking our country back.

  •  The World would suffer (4.00)
    without a few Nazis to humor us.

    The world would be so boring without heartless stick figures who mock dying poor children.

    "Where are the WMDs? Are they under there? No, not there? Where are the WMDs? Under there? No, just a few dying Muslim children under there?"

    Heh, heh. Since when did TIME become a Racist Comedy rag?

    "If cows and horses had hands, they would depict their gods as cows and horses." Xenophanes

    by upstate NY on Sun Apr 17, 2005 at 10:39:39 AM PDT

  •  Poster Chick for Anorexia (none)
    no wonder she's such a whackjob...she isn't eating. this lack of nutritian has certainly affected her "brain" activity.

    "Leadership and learning are indispensable to each other." - JFK

    by jillian on Sun Apr 17, 2005 at 10:39:59 AM PDT

    •  Why do her looks merit a mention? (3.25)
      Not to pick on you, Jillian, because you are far, far, far from alone . . . but why is any woman who is a public figure, whether on the right or on the left, continually subjected to comments about her appearance?  When is the last time you read a story about Frist, or DeLay, or Kennedy, or any other MAN, for that matter, in which their physical attributes were discussed?  I find it particularly disappointing when other women contribute to this phenomenon.  Again, Jillian, this isn't a personal attack on you--your post was simply the most recent example of something I have been meaning to comment about for a while.
      •  I did mention earlier on (none)
        that Delay looks like he had a cheekbone implant -- or perhaps a bad botox job.  As men become more at ease with the plastic surgery phenom -- I believe we will hear the same for men.  But yes - Lawyertocapitalists- I agree.  P.S.  I hope you are nice to the working class secretaries in your office.  I was one for 45 years and you guys were not always nice to us, especially as there are more and more lawyers and less and less clients - the pressure is really bad and we often took the brunt.  

        It sure the hell is heavy, father -- it's my grandchildren's share of the birth tax

        by xanthe on Sun Apr 17, 2005 at 11:27:36 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  xanthe (none)
          I am sorry you had that experience in your law office!  Yes, I am extremely nice to the staff in our office.  In fact, everyone is so nice to the staff in our office that a friend of mine has said he wishes HE could work in a law office, because when performance issues arise, the staff seem to be totally bullet-proof, when a lawyer would be instantly fired.  I don't mean that in an unkind way (lawyers make their share of mistakes as well), just as an example of the fact that our staff are treated better, not worse, than the others in the office!
      •  The perfect blonde (4.00)
        Tall, slender and well dressed.  And completely lacking substance.  She's like a wingnut's fantasy come true!

        I was thinking earlier today whether she would have less impact if she was heavyset black woman.  I decided the answer was yes.  Unfortunately.

      •  You're not seeing the whole picture (4.00)
        I have been blasted for mentioning the fact that women are constantly bashed for their appearence on discussions here at KOS, but women's looks are picked on in regards to sexually appealing, fashionable, etc.

        I did not address her clothing, makeup, shoes, nailpolish, beauty (or lack thereof) etc. which is the NORM for women to be judged upon.

        I addressed HER PHYSICAL CONDITION.

        If an amaciated man were pictured, I would still question his appearence. I would still wonder if he was eating.

        Now...just looking at her physical condition, do you think this might be a person who is suffering from an affliction that kills young girls and women daily?

        Photo 1

        Phot 2

        and then of course the Time cover.

        What I see this cover is doing is GLORYIFING Starvation Looks for Women in order to be powerful. It is GLORYFING not only the cult of Coulter, but the cult of Anorexia.

        Our media shows all sorts of sizes and AGES of powerful men...Ted Kennedy, for a good example. But for powerful women, the media seems to only highlight skinny, "attractive" women.

        "Leadership and learning are indispensable to each other." - JFK

        by jillian on Sun Apr 17, 2005 at 12:10:19 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  She's slender (none)
          but she hardly looks unhealthy (esp. in comparison to other NYC females), much less anoerexic. These types of comments--that people are worried that she is fueling eating disorder issues--are just more cover for people to comment on her apperence. Anoerexia is a very complicated illness and it's been around since before there was even such a thing as media. There's a lot more to it than skinny models and actresses.
          •  Actually, (none)
            she may look worse in person than she does in her media appearances. Randi Rhodes has mentioned seeing her in NYC, and "everyone who knows her just wants to feed her", indicating that those around her think there may be a problem. (Randi didn't sound malicious about it, either, so it's more than just liberal spite I think.)

            "It's an unnerving thought that we may be the living universe's supreme achievement and its worst nightmare simultaneously." -- Bill Bryson

            by Cali Scribe on Sun Apr 17, 2005 at 01:27:12 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  if you don't think she looks unhealthy (none)
            in these photos, that only illustrates how bad off we as a community are about women's weight.  

            Look at her arms and legs!  She looks incredibly weak and brittle.  She has no muscle mass. If that looks okay to you, then we have real problems.  


        •  Jillian (none)
          I totally agree with your last point--that the media highlights attractive women.  And I agree that this is unfair and seriously diminishes the power of women.

          But I think your comment that she "might be a person who is suffering . . . " is very telling.  The fact is, you and I don't have any idea whether Ann Coulter has an eating disorder.  She may be blessed with good genes, or she may eat healthfully and work out fanatically in between episodes of spreading conservative propaganda, viciously attacking others and missing the trial of the pie-throwers in Arizona, about which she is so concerned.  I think it is dangerous to speculate about such things with no real evidence to support your speculation (as is pointed out in the comment above mine).

          Finally, either you missed my point or you don't care about it.  Either is fine.  However, I think you are awfully fast with the 1 rating.  I don't care enough about it to rate your posts with 1's, but the next person on whom you drop an unwarranted 1 may not feel the same way.

          •  No... (none)
            I got your point.

            "Leadership and learning are indispensable to each other." - JFK

            by jillian on Sun Apr 17, 2005 at 01:09:14 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  It's very telling that you think (none)
            that the women highlighted by the media are attractive and that you think she has "good genes". It would appear that you subscribe to the cult of "body fascism" -- that only women who don't have the average body types of women but have the body types of teenage boys are attractive and intelligent. This  modern pressure on women to take up a minimum amount of space is wreaking havoc on girls' and women's health. It started in the 60s and has just gotten worse and worse.

            Women who have curves are treated as bimbos or as fat and unattractive. Marilyn Monroe would just not cut it today.

            I don't care if Ann is thin because she is anorexic, bulemic, a drug addict, hyperthyroid, or just she has "good genes" <snark>. Someone that far left on the body bell curve should not be held up as the body "ideal".

            "You don't lead by pointing and telling people some place to go. You lead by going to that place and making a case." - Ken Kesey

            by Glinda on Sun Apr 17, 2005 at 04:13:13 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Glinda (none)
              Did you read the entire thread above?  I am concerned that you either read my post out of context or that I must not have made myself very clear (always a possibility).

              First, the only reason I mentioned any possible alternative "causes" for Coulter's thinness was to point out that it is not fair to assume she has an eating disorder merely because she is thin.  I did not say that I know definitively that Coulter has good genes--I only mentioned that is possible, along with the possibility that she works out like a fiend and eats healthfully, or any number of other possibilites I did not ennumerate.  Like it or not, there are some women who are thin for these and other reasons and I don't think one should presume and accuse an eating disorder without any evidence whatsoever to support it other than "she's thin."

              Second, I am all-too-keenly aware of how people view women who are not thin and "attractive" within the conventional view of such things.  I am very much aware of the effect that the pressure regarding "curves" has on a woman's self esteem, dating prospects, work success and myriad other areas of one's life.  I know this from personal experience, as an intelligent woman with curves.  So don't point your self-righteous finger at me as if I am the person perpetuating the myth.

              In fact (and here was the point I intended to make), my original post merely said I don't see why we talk about women's bodies at all in the context of attacking their political views.  Perhaps I missed the story, but I do not know of Ann Coulter holding herself out as the physical ideal for us and saying, "Believe me, I'm thin!"--rather, it was the poster above who chose to bring up Coulter's thinness as a personal attack, coupled with a bitchy remark about her having an eating disorder (based on pure speculation).  I am disgusted that those kinds of attacks based on one's physicality or appearance are only made on women, not men.  To me the sin is compounded when it is a woman making such an attack.

              Perhaps I have read a mean-spirited tone into your comment when one was not intended.  If so, I'm sorry.  But I feel as if I have had a sharp finger poked squarely into my chest, and unfairly so.

              •  I read your post (none)
                You aren't getting it: Just think about your use of the "good genes" meme and what that says about how warped women's view of attractive bodies are these days.

                As I stated in my previous comment, I don't care how she stays thin, the woman is emaciated ... positively skeletal. That is not attractive. I too live in New York and have seen hundreds of bodies of women whose body type is naturally "model thin". They look natural and healthy. Ann looks sickly. And I've seen that bodytype as well here and far too often. It's pure body distortion.  

                That aside, Coulter asks for references to be made to her looks ... in spades. She has attacked liberal and Democratic women for their looks many, many times. Here's just a sampling: From her July 26th, 2004 column about the Democratic National Convention:

                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.

                One more thing: I'd take this discussion much more seriously if I had seen anyone who has come to Ann's defense on her body today also calling the following Kossacks on their pot shots at women's looks:

                Newsie's C&J got 39 '4s' for a post containing this snippet with nary a comment:

                Cheers to good looking princes! (uber snark alert!) Thanks to Diana, these two weren't infected by the Camilla gene pool.
                Or this pathetic commentary on Terri Schiavo:
                Another thing - have you seen pictures of her "before?" She was an attractive woman! Wouldn't she'd be horrified to know that she's all over the tv looking the way she does now?

                Yes, she was very attractive when she was drinking nothing but iced tea causing that disasterous potassium deficiency that resulting in irreversible brain damage. And wasn't Diana bulemic? But that's okay because she was pretty and thin.

                Neither Camilla Parker Bowles nor Terri Schiavo did anything to deserve remarks about their looks. But their looks are not "ideal".

                Ann on the otherhand deserves what she gets.

                "You don't lead by pointing and telling people some place to go. You lead by going to that place and making a case." - Ken Kesey

                by Glinda on Sun Apr 17, 2005 at 10:04:33 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  I think we are generally saying the same thing. (none)
                  Although I did not see those 2 posts you quote before, I agree they are wrong.  I did tell Jillian at the beginning of this thread that I am tired of all comments about women's physicality, not just any pertaining to Ann Coulter, and that I had seen many other instances of such comments, not just hers.  

                  And I get what you are saying about Ann bringing this on herself, but I personally don't think anything she has said merits lobbing the ball back at her.  I view that as stooping to her level.  Whether she looks skeletal or not, I don't think it is our business to comment on her appearance, any more than it would be our business if she had subjected herself to a plastic surgery that went awry, leaving her with only half a nose.

        •  Yes, yes, and yes! (none)
          I'd love to be the "Coulter of the Left" just once and go on Fox opposite "her grossness" and accuse her of being to blame for Terri Schiavo going into a a coma in the first place: starving and purging herself to look like a fashion skeleton because she thinks that's the way a woman should look to be attractive.

          Yeah ... way out of line. But it would be fun to demonize her for once.

          "You don't lead by pointing and telling people some place to go. You lead by going to that place and making a case." - Ken Kesey

          by Glinda on Sun Apr 17, 2005 at 03:46:00 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I wish I had seen this before responding (none)
            to your other comment.  What would you have Ann Coulter do--gain weight to make everyone else feel better or serve as a better "role model"?  As I said above, we have no idea why she is as thin as she is.  She certainly isn't the only one who is so thin.  But it seems that you blame her merely because she is.  With so many other things to blame her for, why does it have to be about her body?  I don't hear anyone calling Bill Frist out for his extreme thinness.
            •  No Ann can stay as lovely as she is! (none)
              I don't blame her for her body. I blame her for her rhetoric. Bill Frist has said many stupid things but I've never heard him make comments about his opponent's bodies.

              Her vitriol has included attacks on both individual women's bodies (Elizabeth Edwards, for yet another example) and those of all Democratic and liberal women in general. (See the link in my other comment.) It is part of her shtick. I'm just lobbing the ball back at her.

              Regardless, Ann just looks like she's ill. Not a healthy look at all. That some think this is a normal look for a healthy woman in her 40s is a sad comment on this culture.

              "You don't lead by pointing and telling people some place to go. You lead by going to that place and making a case." - Ken Kesey

              by Glinda on Sun Apr 17, 2005 at 11:14:37 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

      •  It isn't nice to poke fun (none)
        at a person's appearance. You're right.

        There are just some public people who so outwardly reflect their interior beauty or ugliness that you'd be blind to pretend otherwise.

        Consider also: Robert Novak, George W. Bush,Tim Russert, Kate O'Beirne to name just a few.

        Think of Dorian Gray's picture in the attic, growing heavy-lidded, slit-eyed,warty-faced, dissipated and corrupt, mirroring the rotten soul of the youthful, handsome, fresh-faced man everyone thought they knew.

        The way you live ultimately catches up to you; your physical appearance tells on you. I bet if you left out the name of someone you're talking about, and just described them, no one would have any trouble recognizing them.

        Still, it isn't nice.

      •  Maybe because she flaunts her looks (none)
        and maybe that's all she's got.

        To thine own self be true - W.S.

        by Agathena on Sun Apr 17, 2005 at 01:02:25 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  I also hate it (none)
        when looks are a focus of a discussion of a woman in the public eye.  The comments on Hillary, Madeleine Albright, Donna Shalala, etc. drove me crazy.

        Coulter, however, makes her living from her looks.  In her USA Today column about the Democratic convention that got cancelled, she mentions her "pretty girl allies" and denigrates the looks of Democratic-leaning women.

        What color are your pajamas?

        by Unstable Isotope on Sun Apr 17, 2005 at 04:36:15 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  coulter's just another embarrassment (none)
    Time, as well. they've proven they have a deep, abiding love for the insane right-wing. i'm trying to find a unifying theme, and maybe it's a baby-eating thing. i think coulter needs to eat infants to maintain her mummfied corpus (thus the abortion stance! fetuses won't do!), and I think time mag is run by the undead.
    connect that with powerline and their unending yearning for human blood, and i think we have a strong case to throw holy water on 'em and watch 'em flail about squealin.
  •  Ron Silver (none) couldn't have come up with a better match for Ann.

    In politics, sometimes the jackasses are on your side.

    by Dump Terry McAuliffe on Sun Apr 17, 2005 at 10:45:28 AM PDT

  •  Mass exposure of Coulter will only help us (4.00)
    I agree most strongly with Truffle's comment upthread that "conservatism" (right-wing radicalism, actually) is in a state of decline.

    Exhibit A:  Ann Coulter is one of the "thinkers" of the right wing.  Think about that.  The woman is a raving lunatic.  

    Putting her on the cover of "Time" is going to be so helpful to our cause because millions of people will now have this equation in their heads:

    Tom DeLay + Ann Coulter = GOP

    Yes, it's more complicated than that, of course, but to many people who don't pay close attention to politics, the perception that they gain is that two thoroughly repugnant characters are the public face of the GOP.

    Time magazine doesn't realise it (or maybe they do), but they just scred a whole mess of points for us in our long twilight struggle.

    (Parenthetically, I should note that Europeans who learn that Ann Coulter is taken seriously as a pundit and given wide exposure in the United States are simply astonished...their feeling is that a large segment of the American populace, as well as jut about all of their elected officials, have gone stark raving mad.)

    There are three kinds of people: Those who see; those who see when they are shown; those who do not see.

    by Shadowthief on Sun Apr 17, 2005 at 10:47:50 AM PDT

  •  Just hang tight (none)
    The backlash is going to be so, so satisfying.

    If you do not try to utter what is unutterable then nothing gets lost. But the unutterable will be-unutterably-contained in what has been uttered. (LW)

    by cmlorenz on Sun Apr 17, 2005 at 10:50:41 AM PDT

    •  How do we make that backlash? (4.00)
      The public will find Coulter wholly repugnant once they are exposed to this venomous package of hatred, ignorance, bile, and racism.

      Question is:  How does the backlash occur?  Think "Time" magazine is going to turn on her?  

      The problem we run into time and again is that the public have no way of hearing voices from the left in the United States--we are shut out of the mainstream media.

      So how do we orchestrate a backlash?  Yes, people will recoil from Ann Coulter, but they will not know that there are millions of like-minded people because there is no way for them to communicate and join together!


      The Left needs its own television and radio network--and yes I am aware of Pacifica Radio Network and Air America Radio, and they are good starts but the Left needs its Fox channel.  Where is it?

      There are three kinds of people: Those who see; those who see when they are shown; those who do not see.

      by Shadowthief on Sun Apr 17, 2005 at 10:58:03 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Ironic (none)
        that jenine garofolo was made fun of in that cartoon film -- and someone like Coulter was not --  Let's get Jeanine on Time's cover.

        It sure the hell is heavy, father -- it's my grandchildren's share of the birth tax

        by xanthe on Sun Apr 17, 2005 at 11:31:37 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  YES (none)
        Where is it??
        •  IndTV (none)
          When does IndTV debut?  And in the meantime, perhaps we can start up our own liberal/progressive publishing houses?  Or at least marshal the resources we have?  

          As for Air America, for example, it's a year old and is already up to 53 stations.  These things take time, but the liberal/progressive voices will begin to reenter the mainstream.  We just need to keep at it.

          When you couldn't get a real journalism job, there's Fox News.

          by The Truffle on Sun Apr 17, 2005 at 01:00:42 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  Lets focus on more (none)
    important things rather then Ann Coulter, and thats everything else.
  •  Ann Coulter: Nutcase (none)
    (Apologies to Al Franken, but his chapter on this utter lunatic is just too good not to repeat a few choice parts.  I'm sure he'll understand).

    "How to lie with footnotes #4: Use the 'any words printed in a newspaper are the official opinion of that newspaper' technique"

    "Her books, like her guest appearances, consist of nonstop rabid frothing."

    And look at her sohpisticated arguments:
    -Christie Todd Whitman (R-NJ) is a "birdbrain"
    -Adlai Syevenson (D-IL) was a "boob"
    -Gerald Ford (R-MI) is "a little dumb"
    -Gary Johnson (R-NM) is "truly stupid"
    -Susan Collins (R-ME) is a "half-wit"
    -James Jeffords (I-VT)  is also a "half-wit"

    OK, I confess that I agree on Gary Johnson, but the point is that for someone who is supposedly put off by the debasemrnt of debate, she's done an awful lot to debase it herself.

    And my favorite, she claimed that Evan Thomas, editor of Newsweek, is a descendant of Norman Thomas, the Socialist presidential candidate from the 1930s.  He is not, and when Thomas was informed of this, he asked: "Is there something wrong with her?"

    And one last personal observation: She is the only right-wing talking head that not even my GOP aunt and uncle can stand.

    All your vote are belong to us

    by Harkov311 on Sun Apr 17, 2005 at 10:55:05 AM PDT

    •  Let's not forget (none)
      Coulter also said that Sen. Joe McCarthy (R-Jack Daniels) was "right."

      In politics, sometimes the jackasses are on your side.

      by Dump Terry McAuliffe on Sun Apr 17, 2005 at 11:13:02 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Not exactly... (none)
      She claimed that Evan Thomas was Norman Thomas' son.  Evan Thomas is Norman Thomas' grandson.

      Not that there's anything wrong with that.  Norman Thomas was a great American, as was most of the American Socialist Party of that period, who came up with most of the ideas that today's liberals hold dear.  The American Communist Party and Earl Browder, however, whether they knew it or not, were mostly idealistic-yet-misguided pawns of Moscow.  That's why first the Molotov/Ribbentrop Pact and then Khrushchev's denounciation of Stalin crushed the Party, once the wool was pulled from their eyes, the vast majority of American Communists left ASAP.

      And Ann Coulter isn't just unbalanced, she's a sensationalist who looks for the most outrageous thing she can possibly say, and says it just to attract attention.  No, I don't believe she is truly that much of a nutjob.  

      •  inherited politics (none)
        Indeed, there is nothing wrong with that.

        Plus, there is an unspoken assumption in her accusation that this means the offspring of a political leader would necessarily agree with their parents.

        Well shit, my grandmother was a Catholic-hating Goldwater voter, but thankfully those particular trends ended with her.

        And just to cite a more dramatic example, Hilde Speer, daughter of Nazi architect and bureaucrat Albert Speer was a member of the center-left SPD in the German Bundestag.

        All your vote are belong to us

        by Harkov311 on Sun Apr 17, 2005 at 11:57:21 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  She writes and thinks like a (none)
      junior-high smear campaign against people who "aren't cool" or looked at a boy she likes. She is most successful at bothering people. She knows what her job is. This lowest common denominator shit is on purpose. She is educated enough to write better.

      we now know a lot of things, most of which, we already knew... (-dash888)

      by Tirge Caps on Sun Apr 17, 2005 at 11:45:44 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  How nice. She even hates Republicans (none)

      When you couldn't get a real journalism job, there's Fox News.

      by The Truffle on Sun Apr 17, 2005 at 01:02:18 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Yes! (none)
    "repugnant characters are the public face of the GOP"


    Hang on, is right.

  •  I am glad I cancelled my subscription to Time. (4.00)
    IMHO they had become useless.

    This proves it.; an oasis of truth.

    by Shockwave on Sun Apr 17, 2005 at 10:57:19 AM PDT

  •  She doesn't exist... (4.00)
    After reading one particularly disgusting column she wrote about Max Cleland, I resolved to never, ever read her again or even discuss her.

    I will not make her successful by reading anything she writes.  I will not knowingly buy any issue of a publication that writes about her or has articles by her.

    I am breaking that resolve now in hopes I can encourage you all to do the same.  

    This diary supports her by elevating her influence even if it is to protest it.  She got the cover more because of how she baits her opponents than the quality of her work.  Don't fall for it.

  •  ah-ha (none)
    noted :) thanks! (still catching up on all the names in the game...)
  •  Oh yeah, (none)
    she's so fucking cute I could just fucking puke.

    Did the author join her in the bathroom for a throat finger  fucking?

    Whenever I have the stomach for it, I'll read the fucking piece.

    "Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler." Albert Einstein

    by x on Sun Apr 17, 2005 at 11:12:15 AM PDT

  •  Why the surprise? (none)
    Time has been crap from its very beginnings. A gossip tabloid printed on shiny paper. Its level of intellect and information is drawn from the same well where People sips, but Time throws a few big words over the emptiness.

    Their latest cover is simply acknowledgement that the market for thought-free-but-high-falutin is drying up, so they're shooting for the profoundly stupid who still manage to achieve psychosis.

    Personally I think they should consider giving Coulter a column. Better one giant wet thunderclap of a verbal fart than the timid little congestions that Time's current crowd emits in hopes they can quietly bestink the intellectual atmosphere and still pass as patrician.

  •  She goes to church? (none)
    Since when?
  •  Image of the "Time"s we live in (4.00)
    that pops into my head is probably from some movie I can't recall: German officers in a Parisian bar/brothel, drunk and yucking it up with the ladies.

    Hey, at least they didn't burn Paris; collaborators were shot and the ladies got their heads shaved, and the German officers possibly died on the Russian Front.

    People in power think it will last forever.  They are small people who've never had such attention before.  It's quite understandable, predictable.

    Idiots don't know they're idiots.  That's part of the blindness that goes with the arrogance.  And then, one day, they lose power and all is exposed...

    If a thousand men were not to pay their tax bills this year, that would not be a violent and bloody measure, as it would be to pay them, and enable the State...

    by HenryDavid on Sun Apr 17, 2005 at 11:23:40 AM PDT

  •  Now that they've put Coulter up (none)
    there is no reason not to put Ed Schultz up there in the next issue.

    BTW: has anybody gone to his website and looked at the reach & times he has in some very large markets? This guy's come a long way in the last year or so...

  •  Where's Ms. Moral Values' fricken family? (4.00)
    The officialdom of punditry, so full of phonies and dullards, would suffer without her humor and fire. Which is not to say you don't want to shut her up occasionally.

    Oh dear, anyone who holds this pointless waste of plasma as a paragon of honesty needs a catscan. (TIME is just sooooo brave to go with the theofascist flow, innit?)

    Yo, corporate media whore, giving Miss/ter Thing more forum time to shriek at libruls for not having those down home half-baked moral values she espouses fails the smell test harder than Queen Skank's moronic self-rebutting rhetoric.

    Whyncha ask her where she buried her RW Christian husb, 2.5 kids and possibly gay cocker spaniel? The nuclear theofascist family ideal is not only desirable but so easily acquired, not to have it is downright TREASON.

    So let's see hers already.

    This machine fights fascism - motto on Woody Guthrie's guitar

    by Peanut on Sun Apr 17, 2005 at 11:30:42 AM PDT

  •  If anybody wants to see the Time cover (4.00)
    Drudge posted it before it was yanked from the Internets.

    Yeah, I know..the Drudge Report--yeck.  It's the only place I could find it.

    There are three kinds of people: Those who see; those who see when they are shown; those who do not see.

    by Shadowthief on Sun Apr 17, 2005 at 11:31:51 AM PDT

    •  that was so unnecessary (3.00)
      Even Colonel Sanders wouldn't go for those legs.  
    •  radical modernist elements! (3.66)
      Someone should also point out to Annie that the Euro-chic rating of that Barcelona chair in which she sits so fetchingly (ick ick ick) is totally off the charts.  She might have a meltdown and start flaming Time.
    •  The last time I saw feet like that... (3.83)
      ... they were curling up beneath a house that fell out of the air.

      we now know a lot of things, most of which, we already knew... (-dash888)

      by Tirge Caps on Sun Apr 17, 2005 at 11:48:57 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Obviously (3.33)
      hatred and bigotry doesn't build up one's appetite. She comes to a point at the bottom. Was this cover supposed to be for her benefit? As a letter-carrier, I have to deliver that piece of shit. I'll be seeing it all freakin' day! It's almost as bad as their Man of the Year issue. I think Ms. Directed would have made a more appropriate title.

      They want the federal government controlling Social Security like it's some kind of federal program - George W. Bush

      by kitebro on Sun Apr 17, 2005 at 11:52:09 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Ah, man (2.50)
      Ah, man. Why did you have to post that image? I just ate lunch.
    •  For God's sake. (3.33)
      I am fed up of people constantly attacking Ann Coulter's appearance because they disagree with her ideology. I agree that she is racist, but there's absolutely nothing wrong with her legs. And the only time you notice her Adam's apple is when some random weblogger takes a fuzzy screencap of her in an interview, zooms in on her throat, and draws a big red circle around it. She is an attractive woman. The only thing that's ugly about her is her sick mind.
      •  It is fitting that we attack her (none)
        appearence, since it is on the cover of Time Magazine! It's as big as life (no pun intended) and completely repulsive. The woman's in dire need of a nosh. We have , as yet, not been privy to the content of the article. Her visual image  is all we have at this point (as far as I know). As to her legs, to each his or her own. I think she looks like a gawky 13 year old. My apologies to any gawky 13 year old who may be reading this.

        They want the federal government controlling Social Security like it's some kind of federal program - George W. Bush

        by kitebro on Sun Apr 17, 2005 at 02:18:16 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Whether or not she is attractive (none)
        is subject to point of view. Some people feel she is unattractive, this is their right. Some think she is attractive, like you, and others, which is your right. I, for one, can't find anybody attractive who blathers on the way she does, but had I never heard her before, with no history, I would find her style and looks (stemming from a questionable diet) bothersomingly gawdy and abrasive. And smug.

        we now know a lot of things, most of which, we already knew... (-dash888)

        by Tirge Caps on Sun Apr 17, 2005 at 05:12:27 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  I got something stuck in my teeth.... (none)
      ...could I borrow your shoe?  or your kneecap?

      Good God...she is a fucking disgrace.

      Let's play this up.

      I saw somewhere upthread that there is an article that isn't good for the BugMan in this same issue.

      So, if this is true.  Maybe some of our wingnut friends and family need to get a nice free copy of Time Mag this week.

      Wow, this is just amazing.

      Ann the Cu*ter on the cover of Time.  Un fucking believeable.

  •  unsubscribe to the Internets? (none)
    I just cannot take much more.  Every time I step away from the computer for a while and refresh the Daily Kos homepage on returning, I get a new high-water mark of outrage.  It's like getting punched in the gut every two hours.  I can only hope there is some kind of entropy for right-wing insanity, so the returns start to diminish on ever-greater provocation.

    Makes me want to move in with a feral cat colony.

  •  WTF?? (none)
    Why is Time elevating her status? Next are they going to put Sean Hannity on the cover?

    I was fine with Bush on the cover. Like him, hate him, he, in his role as the President influences world policy and his Iraq adventure created a big splash in the pond, effects of which will be felt for decades. So it's fine that Bush gets put on the cover.

    But Anne Coulter? A common rabble rouser? On the cover of Time magazine, a magazine that to me was as American as apple pie?

    And this is "the liberal media"?

    •  They're desperate (none)
      Time magazine long ago threw in its lot with the extreme right-wing.

      If they go down...well, the folk who run AOL-Time-Warner don't want to think about that.

      The right wing is flailing in the dark.  They're desperate to promote one of their "intelligentsia" (yep, Ann is considered a right-wing "intellectual" in that circle).  Their great Austrian-bred hope, Governor Arnie, is getting his flabby butt kicked by the unions (nurses, teachers, firefighters, cops) in Kahleefornya.  Bill "Cat Killer" Frist has bitten off more than he can chew with the threat of ending filibusters in the Senate.  Everywhere, the once-triumphant GOP is suddenly on the defencive, having done what they always do:  overreach.

      Ah, but a fanatic's reach should exceed his grasp, or what's a smackdown for?

      Expect more of this as DeLay, Bush, Cheney, et al, continue to drown in the mess they've made.  These are the desperate flailings of the drowning.

      There are three kinds of people: Those who see; those who see when they are shown; those who do not see.

      by Shadowthief on Sun Apr 17, 2005 at 11:41:39 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  AOL/Time stupidly panders to the dumbass populace (none)
        ... that isn't remotely interested in news, current affairs, or even finding wood on the inner netz. Even as a cold business decision this content choice is so dumbass, it out-dumbs the dumbasses.

        I won't even flip through Time at the supermarket checkout. (At least the tabs provide guffaw value.)

        This machine fights fascism - motto on Woody Guthrie's guitar

        by Peanut on Sun Apr 17, 2005 at 12:00:28 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  She's Perky! She's Cute! (none)
    She's a HE!!!

    Tom DeLay is so corrupt...<HOW CORRUPT IS HE?>...He's so corrupt that when he takes the Oath of Office, he holds his hand OUT instead of UP!

    by mlkisler on Sun Apr 17, 2005 at 11:34:18 AM PDT

  •  Arrrrggghhhhh!!!! (4.00)
    An Coulter is a vile, self-loathing, rasicist, paranoid, leather clad whore.  That's why the bow tie boys in the SCLM find her attractive.  They've moved on to bondage and domination after getting their fill of teen exploitation.

    When all else fails...panic

    by David in Burbank on Sun Apr 17, 2005 at 11:47:18 AM PDT

  •  We Continue our Cover Series... (none)
    With people who play with themselves in public and  should never be taken seriously, and who give us a hardy laugh,,,,next month TIME will feature Pee Wee Herman, on the cove.

    At least Pee Wee added something to life.

    Search for the truth is the noblest occupation of man; its publication is a duty. ~Anne Louise Germaine de Stael

    by DickCheneyBeforeHeDicksYou on Sun Apr 17, 2005 at 11:49:36 AM PDT

  •  I am no longer reading Time magazine (none)
    When Time magazine is running cover stories of such crass, xenophobic, racist reactionaries as Ann Coulter, you know it is time to unsubscribe.

    Time continues to descend into the depths of the abyss.  The Corporate Media strikes again!

  •  I sent my E-mail to Time (none)
    Thanks for the address.

    I think it would be a nice idea for all to send their revulsion e-mails.  

    Fix the Problems, Don't create new ones

    by BarnBabe on Sun Apr 17, 2005 at 11:59:43 AM PDT

    •  Here's mine (already sent): (none)
      I found your choice of Ann Coulter as this week's cover story interesting to say the least; to continue your present journalistic standards, I suggest  you consider prominently displaying David Horowitz in a future issue. He shares a number of distinctions with Ann Coulter.

      They have similar views on 'liberals'--Horowitz is an admirer of Coulter for just this reason, perhaps in part as a retaliation against 'liberal pundits'. Of course even he admits that Ann goes over the top sometimes, but that's what he likes about her--provided that what she writes is satire.

      Ay, there's the rub: as Horowitz wrote on his own website in an article entitled 'The Trouble with "Treason"' (July 8, 2003), "what if [the opening of Treason] is not satire? Is it the case that liberals like Harry Truman, Lyndon Johnson and John F. Kennedy sided with the enemy? Of course not." So apparently Ann Coulter's views are fine just so long as you don't take her seriously! If you did, however, assume that she meant what she said, well then that would be 'Slander' (or in the case of her books, 'Libel'--perhaps that title will be forthcoming from her?).

      Still, fact-checking aside, Horowitz still admires her spirit; and they share other things in common as well. Perhaps most significantly, David Horowitz and Ann Coulter share funding: Ann Coulter was fired by the National Review due to the content of one of her columns; perhaps it was the bit about killing Arab leaders and civilians, carpet-bombing cities, and converting the remaining people to Christianity. She was then hired by David Horowitz, who wasn't offended because--remember--he doesn't take her seriously ("her comment was hyperbolic, tongue firmly in cheek"). Ah yes David, ha ha indeed, how clever of her.

      But again, back to the funding: how can Horowitz afford to hire her, run his site, and campaign for his pet causes? Well he isn't independently wealthy, but others are: his group ("the Center for the Study of Popular Culture") is funded by a number of conservative foundations, prominently including the John M. Olin foundation, the Bradley foundation, and the Scaife foundations. Each has contributed millions, and the total contribution is nearly $14 million from 1989-2003 ( All to attack so-called 'leftist anti-American elitist culture'--you know, the half of America that they don't like.

      So there you have it: if you advocate killing Arab civilians and enjoy slandering liberals, you too can enjoy the funding of many conservative foundations, and be an advocate for their causes! Perhaps Time can cash in on this gravy train too, if it hasn't done so already.

  •  Pandering, pandering to the whacko base (none)
    Every time we think the RW is so out there, so extreme, that they have to have marginalized themselves beyond repair, they simply throw themselves into that fray with more and more gusto.

    That's what Ann is all about.  

    And the root of the appeal, what that base laps up with a spoon, is this simple message:  It's all right to hate.  To belittle and oppress.  To goose your ego by denigrating another group, be it Muslims, gays, liberals from Massachusetts, Hollywood.  All your worst instincts and nastiest impulses:  Enjoy them, embrace them.  Nothing to be ashamed of.  On the contrary, they are godly and patriotic.

    And now Time jumps on the bandwagon: oh isn't she a hoot, wouldn't we miss all the vile things she says.  It's not contemptible, it's charming and fresh.

    Give people that, permission to be thugs and bigots and vicious, and they will love and vote for you forever.

  •  Ann came to Tucson (none)
    and had two pies thrown at her.  Two young men were charged, but when she and the arresting officer failed to show up in court, the case was dismissed.  This week she wrote a column trashing our county prosecutor and claiming liberals have no words so they have food fights.  She and her minions make me sick.
    •  wish I could have included that in my e-mail (none)
      I had a paragraph about that in my e-mail to Time, but had to cut it for brevity. Horowitz got hit by a pie too (amongst other far-right noisemakers), and both of them were outraged. Ann even compared her pie 'assault' to Muslims being (or not being?) assaulted after 9/11. And as you mentioned, she thinks it had something to do with fact-based discourse--not that I've ever seen her engage anyone in that.

      Of course this all started in Europe (something to do with free speech and having a sense of humor?), and I'm sure Ann and David will be thrilled to know that the people who pied Bill Gates were apprehended and got fined 75 euros.

  •  Scratching my head about (none)
    Why did the Time Warner PAC give a very significant $5000 contribution in the last cycle to Deborah Pryce's (R-OH) campaign.  I'm also wondering why they have given significant dollars to John Lewis, the Congressman from Georgia.

    As one might expect their PAC's behavior is rather heavily skewed towards the Republicans (I guess you might expect this, given the power structure), even going so far as to contribute to such organizations as the Every Republican is Crucial PAC and the Keep Our Majority PAC.  

    One of the things I did learn from looking their FEC reports is that apparently it is possible for corporations to have employees contribute to PACs via payroll deductions.

    I do wonder what Ann Coulter has done to merit any coverage recently.  We have gotten a string of conservative friendly covers laterly, with the Pope, the religious right, the influential people and now Ann Coulter.  Maybe they will attempt to balance it out with a cover story with a flame throwing liberal like Alan Combs or maybe a story about Jerry Springer (whose radio show I actually like a lot).

  •  She's a man, baby. (1.00)

    "In such a world of conflict, a world of victims and executioners, it is the job of thinking people not to be on the side of the executioners." -Albert Camus.

    by BrianL on Sun Apr 17, 2005 at 12:15:27 PM PDT

    •  Who really cares? (4.00)
      Ugh, I hate attacks on her appearance. They're as shallow as she is. Let's just be honest, if she were a lefty, many people on our side would be all over her looks. The fact is, for a woman well over 40, she looks rather good.
      •  Yep, our Ann is a real dish (none)
        I agree, attacks on her looks are the lowest common denominator.  Rather, we should be focusing on statements like this one (which got her sacked from her columnist gig at the National Review, which I thought was pretty far right but apparently not enough to stomach Coulter's rants):

        "We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity. We weren't punctilious about locating and punishing only Hitler and his top officers. We carpet-bombed German cities; we killed civilians. That's war. And this is war."

        Written September 14, 2001

        Guess what? is even further right than the National Review--removed the column in which she made that remark.  That's why the link to that article spits back the infamous "404" page at us.

        Ann's fellow right-wingers are embarrassed by her.  As they ought to be.

        Ann Coulter and Tom DeLay ought to be the poster children for the GOP.  Let us make them so.

        There are three kinds of people: Those who see; those who see when they are shown; those who do not see.

        by Shadowthief on Sun Apr 17, 2005 at 02:05:40 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I agree (none)
          If you want to attack her, bring her STATEMENTS to the forefront. They are MUCH worse than her worse photo (which it appears you have found).

          Through the Internet, I came across an Ann fan (on a feminist board no less!) and she always dismissed comments critisizing Coulter based on her looks as meaningless. And then she would point out how Coulter's books include a bibliography so therefore the contents must be true!

          Imagine if instead of talking about her so-called adam's apple we instead devoted ourselves to exposting her frequent and obvious lies? Instead, people use her as a female punching bag, which does nothing to devalue her message and perpetuates her inanity that much longer.

          •  I agree that her looks are irrelevant (none)
            Yes, we have some fun making fun of the way she looks.  But Ann Coulter could be Salma Hayek's twin and still be repugnant for what she says and does.

            That's why I posted her comments next to her photo.

            By the way, want to know where I got the photo?

            From that's where.  It's from the online version of the "Time" story.

            If you don't like the way the photograph looks, take it up with "Time" magazine, not me.  I also posted the cover photo, in which Ms. Coulter is photographed in a more flattering light.

            Not only that, but the right wing makes fun of the looks of John Kerry (calling him "Lurch") and John Edwards (the "Breck girl"), etc.  While I agree that looks ought to be kept out of the discussion for the most part, it may give you some small comfort to know that it is applied against men, as well, and that the right-wingers started the personal attacks...not the left.  It seems only natural that the left has picked up the awful theme of attacking people's appearance.

            And you know, Rush Limbaugh is a big, fat idiot.

            There are three kinds of people: Those who see; those who see when they are shown; those who do not see.

            by Shadowthief on Sun Apr 17, 2005 at 04:00:25 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  I couldn't care less (none)
              what photo you post of her. I am not a fan of Ann Coulter and I do not read her. If I had a Time subscription I would cancel it. However, I'm objective enough to acknowledge that in MOST pictures I've seen of her, she isn't bad looking.

              My point is that the VAST majority of criticisms made about her are based on her appearance. If you don't believe me, take a quick read through this thread. And it's the same in every diary that's written about her. I maintain that we should attack and refute her words. That type of criticism might actually weaken her legitimacy.

              Yes, the media has made fun of men, but it is NOWHERE near the degree to which women in the media are criticized based on their appearance. That men are starting to also take heat for their appearance doesn't make it any better. Now we ALL get to feel insecure and innadequate. Gee, isn't that great?

              •  It's a sauce for the goose thing (none)
                Not only do the wingers famously harp on looks as one of their many ways to win by intimidating, mockery and contempt, but Ann is a particularly offensive proponent.

                It is they who have chosen this (sadly effective) mode of discourse.  By returning fire, we highlight both the meanness of their kind of dialogue, but also the truism about glass house dwellers.

      •  She looks horrible! (none)
        She's a social x-ray. I don't find anorexic women attractive. We have too many lousy role models in the media and fashion industry for our daughters. I can see what it does to adolescent girle.

        In my opinion, the elevation of that body type as an "ideal" exhibits a disgust with the female form.

        "You don't lead by pointing and telling people some place to go. You lead by going to that place and making a case." - Ken Kesey

        by Glinda on Sun Apr 17, 2005 at 02:53:03 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Ann Coulter as a physical role model? (none)
          For who? I've heard Freepers drooling over her, but that's about it. I'm pretty sure the average teen has no idea who she is.

          And again, we have no idea is she's anoerexic or not and it's useless to speculate. I have a female friend who is thinner than Coulter and is by no means suffering from any illness (in fact she's a restaurant owner and chef).

          Women should be allowed to come in a variety of shapes and sizes. That most actresses and all models are thinner than average shouldn't mean that it's okay to hack away at women who are also less than average in size.

          •  Heh! (none)
            Thank you for answering you for me. You inadvertently said it better than I could have:

            "Women should be allowed to come in a variety of shapes and sizes. That most actresses and all models are thinner than average shouldn't mean that it's okay to hack away at women who are also less than average in size.*

            My heart absolutely bleeds for all the abuse that women who are less than average in size take in America. Heh.

            "You don't lead by pointing and telling people some place to go. You lead by going to that place and making a case." - Ken Kesey

            by Glinda on Sun Apr 17, 2005 at 04:24:29 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  You don't have to be sympathetic (none)
              and I can understand why you wouldn't be, but I'm a feminist and I believe that women should be judged by their actions rather than their physical appearance. It's terrible that there aren't more body types being represented in the media, but that doesn't make it okay to bash women who do reflect the media ideal.
              •  No I bash the media ... (none)
                for their creation of the modern "ideal woman". The fashion industry should be held accountable.

                And I'm just giving Ann a dose of her own medicine. She regularly bashes all Democratic and liberal women's looks. And if you're truly a feminist it must have galled you when she spoke ill of Bela Abzug's looks. Ann should be as beautiful as Bela was, God rest her soul I miss her!

                I'm merely throwing stones at her glass house.

                And I'm an equal opportunity basher ... I bash the troglodite men's looks as well.

                "You don't lead by pointing and telling people some place to go. You lead by going to that place and making a case." - Ken Kesey

                by Glinda on Sun Apr 17, 2005 at 09:17:38 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Yup (none)
                  I am just as repulsed by her comments about female liberals. The ironic thing is, if you read the article, the author mentions a story in which Coulter criticized a cutesie comment Halle Barry made about her own breasts. Her conclusion was that Barry's career benefited greatly from her looks, which isn't exactly fair to those who aren't great lookers.

                  Anyway, as a matter of course, I try not to make negative comments about people whose business isn't primarily about their appearance. I think it is FAR more effective to attack their words and deeds. And just as I have complained about the man comments about Coulter, I similarly complained when posters here made fun of a female CNN anchor who is on the heavy side. What can I say? I'm an equal opportunity bore.

                  Incidently, in the article, Coulter was also reluctant to talk about her mother, who is currently going through chemotherapy. Why? Because she didn't want to seem a more empathetic character to liberals. I'm telling you, she LIKES being bashed by us.

      •  Attacking Coulter's looks is low, but (none)
        do you remember when she was asked by MSNBC to cover the 2004 Democratic convention and the first thing she did was make horrible comments about how the Democratic women at the convention were fat and dowdy and that Repub women were so much better looking and more fashionable?  Even right wing MSNBC was appalled and yanked her. She then claimed MSNBC was infringing on her free speech.  I say "let her have it".  One of my theories on life is that, as adults, we doomed to relive 7th grade over and over again.  In 7th grade I am sure Ann was a mean heather who trashed the liberal nerdy girls for not being pretty enough or having expensive fashionable clothing.  The remarks on this diary reflect her karma.

        Remember - IOKIYAR: Its O.K. if your're a Republican

        by AnneElizabeth on Sun Apr 17, 2005 at 03:02:47 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  asdf (none)
    If someone on the left throws out anger and hatred like Ann Coulter, they're loony liberals, psychotic, and offensive.  Ann Coulter, however, gets a Time Mag cover and is seen as gleefully effective and full of humor and fire!
  •  Rumors abound that Ms Coulter was not always as (none)
    you see her today. At one time supposedly Coulter was a male who in his early twenties underwent a series of sex change procedures in Europe. Can anyone confirm?

    This is not a mexed missage.

    by CityofGod on Sun Apr 17, 2005 at 12:32:02 PM PDT

  •  Episode #42: "REAL TIME WITH BILL MAHER" (none)
    (via satellite)
    (via satellite)

    MAHER: All right, speaking of brave women, I have Ann Coulter waiting for me in satellite. [laughter]

    BELZER: I'm going to leave.

    MAHER: Don't. No, no, you're not. Sit right there. [laughter] You know what? This is what's wrong with America. People don't even want to listen to each other. She is a friend of mine, and you will listen. When not dodging custard--

    BELZER: She's a fascist party doll! [laughter] [applause] [cheers]

    •  Bill Maher is smart...... (none)
      when he's not thinking with his dick!
    •  I read this... (none)
      and they wound up the Coulter freak-show with Costner saying this is all "he said, she said."  And that's somehow supposed to make this 1/2 wrong, 1/2 right?

      Well... no, excuse me.  Sometimes it goes like this: he said, "she's lying", and she said, "no I'm not."  

      And you know one of those people is wrong... just wrong.  

      And so, not only is that harpy just annoying at every turn... she's lying.  There's a difference.  

      Hey hey, ho ho, irresponsible corporatism and social intolerance have got to go! Hey hey, ho ho!

      by kfractal on Sun Apr 17, 2005 at 05:43:47 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  A triumph for the transgendered (none)
    . . . getting one of their own on the cover of Time.

    Send Dubya back to the ranch! BeatBushBlog

    by Frederick on Sun Apr 17, 2005 at 12:39:11 PM PDT

  •  Coulter (4.00)
    is an evil Racist Bitch. (And i dont really CARE if anyone approves of the wording). It's obvious all the media outlets who put this vile animal on the air approve of her racism overtly just as they do a certain selfhating racist asian woman. The thing that is really tripping lefties up is the unwillingness of our oh so very few spokesmen to call racism et al for what it is. Who can see this happening:

    Coulter: "blablabla raghead blablabla murdereres blabla animals blabla round them up"
    Lefty : "Miss Coulter you're nothing but a vile piece of racist trash and im a little shocked this fine broadcast would even let someone like you on. And even moreso that noone calls you for what you are : nothing more than the new face of american racism and hate"

    If you ever wonder why people make Hitler references when speaking of the current american right wing go research how he came to power. Coulter and company follow his methodology in lockstep.

    The Democratic party needs to adopt its own moral and values principles (clawed)

    by cdreid on Sun Apr 17, 2005 at 12:54:54 PM PDT

  •  Thank God (none)
    It's not a Swimsuit Edition.

    Born right the first time

    by DreamOfPeace on Sun Apr 17, 2005 at 12:56:35 PM PDT

  •  Ann (none)
    Coulter is vile.  That's all the thought she needs to be given.

    Nothing is more real than nothing. Beckett

    by rx scabin on Sun Apr 17, 2005 at 12:58:32 PM PDT

  •  Well God bless (none)
    your managing partner.  thanks for answering.

    It sure the hell is heavy, father -- it's my grandchildren's share of the birth tax

    by xanthe on Sun Apr 17, 2005 at 01:06:04 PM PDT

  •  GAWD! (none)
    What a waste of cellular material.

    9/11 was the Neocons' Reichstag fire.

    by Bulldawg on Sun Apr 17, 2005 at 01:25:12 PM PDT

  •  I'm from the UK and was wondering... (none)
    ...are public MSM figures allowed to be that blatantly rascist?

    Here in the UK, the few rascist outbursts by MSM figures led to a significant backlash against them-

    ex-politician turned conservative pundit comments against Arabs

    Are there any media governing bodies in the US that big MSM corporations have to answer to?

    •  No one considers Coulter to be mainstream (none)
      And she is exactly the type who thrives on any attention, positive or negative.  So most of us try to turn our backs on her.  Reacting to her is throwing fuel on the fire.  Discrediting her is pretty easy, but again it isn't worth the effort.
  •  If Noam Chomsky... (none)
    started channeling Ann Coulter, we'd have two Ward Churchills
  •  Just who suffered crucifixion anyway? (none)
    "melted by the sense of God's grace because of what he did on the cross for you."

    After all these years of being brought up as a Christian, I thought Jesus wast the one nailed to the cross, and not god.

    Isn't if funny how things concerning Christianity can become confused.

    Stupid me! And to think I believed what I heard in church.

    I guess I should consider myself redeemed having been corrcted to think otherwise by persons more 'holy' than I.

  •  I cancelled my Time subscription (none)
    after they named Bush Man of the Year.  Seriously, if they felt they had to do it about the election, let's at least name a true villian like Rove, not the front man.  

    As for the question about whether blatant racism is allowed in the media, the answer is basically yes---although Ann's gotten herself in trouble before.  First, she was fired from MSNBC after she told an amputee veteran that it was men like him who made America lose in Vietnam.  Then, she was fired from the conservative National Review when she wrote  after 9/11 that "we should invade their countries, kill their leaders, and convert them all to Christianity."  So she does lose her job sometimes, but no matter how often her cancerous viewpoint goes into remission, it always comes back.  

    What's almost worse are people like Estrich, who terms her a friend.  She openly lusts for deaths for all journalists, and claims liberals want to murder America.  But oh, she's just kidding around, or something.  

  •  With a gal like Colter being the sexy one (none)
    Well no wonder REpugs follow abstinence.  

    With a gal like that, it should be easy enough for the guys.

  •  And you never will... (none)
    ...there is a "vast right-wing conspiracy"...but it's actually a "vast corporate conspiracy" to keep the voices of the Left dissolute, disorganised, and disenfranchised.

    True liberals or lefties are rarely, if ever, allowed to speak on television or to debate.  The "liberals" offered up as hapless bunnies for the red meat right-wingers to slaughter are really right-of-centre centrists for the most case.

    Janeane Garofalo and Al Franken are two notable exceptions--and in every single debate they've had with their right-wing counterparts, they've pounded them into the ground like a tent stake.

    Now, multiply that by 100 times and you'll KNOW why the corporate media don't allow more dissenting voices on the telly and in print.  Because if they did, WE would win--as Dick Cheney would say, "big time"!

    So let's stop this useless worrying about the corporate media and either raise the money to buy the bastards out, or do an end run around them with our own print, radio, and television outlets.  Because it's time for our voices to be heard--before they are forever silenced.

    There are three kinds of people: Those who see; those who see when they are shown; those who do not see.

    by Shadowthief on Sun Apr 17, 2005 at 01:50:17 PM PDT

  •  Time was founded by Henry Luce (none)
    who with his wife Clare Booth Luce, William F. Buckley, and Regnery, were some of the original crew who started the whole concept of conservative think tanks to rescue America from the left, right back after WWII.

    Time magazine, after 1940, was explicitly partisan - Luce was the son of Christian missionaries in China, btw.

    Some of those anti-feminist outfits that get funds from Coors, Olin, Bradley etc honor Clare Booth Luce by scholarships, one is even named after her.

    Oh, and Arnaud de Borchrave, 30 year editor of Newsweek, and formerly in charge of UPI as well as the Washington Times, helped Richard Mellon Scaife found

    Can we all say, together now,

    "What Liberal Media?"

    "Don't be a janitor on the Death Star!" - Grey Lady Bast (change @ for AT to email)

    by bellatrys on Sun Apr 17, 2005 at 01:56:44 PM PDT

  •  The Ann Coulter Doll (none)
    It isn't a blow-up doll, but it does talk. . . .

    Actually, if it were a blow up doll, that might be a good thing . . . it would encourage abstinence.

  •  Now here's a looker (none)
    I like 'em short and dark-haired and brainy, I admit it.


    There are three kinds of people: Those who see; those who see when they are shown; those who do not see.

    by Shadowthief on Sun Apr 17, 2005 at 02:13:05 PM PDT

    •  I Love Her! (none)
      Brains, beauty and guts. She is a true warrior. I'm glad that she's on our side!

      They want the federal government controlling Social Security like it's some kind of federal program - George W. Bush

      by kitebro on Sun Apr 17, 2005 at 02:32:30 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Who, ironically (none)
      has also been plagued by accusations that she's suffering from an eating disorder. If you're a female and you're out there, one way or another, your appearance is going to be picked apart.
      •  Ok, Jane we get it (none)
        You think women--and only women--are judged by their appearance, and it's not fair.

        Guess what?  Men are judged by appearance, as well.

        Don't believe me?

        Los Angeles Daily News

        Study: Good-looking earn a pretty penny

        By Jim Salter
        Associated Press

        Friday, April 08, 2005 - ST. LOUIS -- Why wasn't I born rich instead of handsome? Or so the lament goes.

        But an office of the nation's central bank now says that if you're gorgeous, chances are better that you will get paid more than plain folks.

        Analysis by the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis suggests that good-looking people tend to make more money and get promoted more often than those with average looks. The analysis is published in the April edition of The Regional Economist, the Fed's quarterly magazine.

        Research analyst Kristie Engemann and economist Michael Owyang looked at the possible link between appearance and wages by evaluating previous surveys and research. Their conclusion: It helps to be tall, slender and attractive.

        Less clear was whether the less attractive are victims of bias, or if good-looking people tend to develop self-confidence and social skills that simply enhance their marketability.

        "It doesn't seem like anti-discrimination laws, even if you enforce them strictly, would be a magic bullet," Owyang said.

        The researchers cited one study that found a "plainness penalty" of 9 percent in wages -- meaning a person with below-average looks tended to earn 9 percent less than those with average looks -- and a "beauty premium" of 5 percent.

        A study concerning weight showed that women who were obese earned 17 percent lower wages than women of average weight.

        Height matters, too, the researchers believe. One study looked at the height of 16-year-olds and the wages they earned later as adults. The taller teens went on to earn an average of 2.6 percent more per additional inch of height.

        "Maybe they developed extra confidence early on that their shorter counterparts didn't have," Engemann said.

        The researchers also cited a survey by journalist Malcolm Gladwell showing that the average chief executive is 3 inches taller than the average man. While a typical American male stands 5-foot-9, Gladwell's study found that about one-third of CEOs are 6-foot-2.

        Jean Seawright, a human-resources consultant from Winter Park, Fla., said the analysis backs up what she sees in the workplace.

        "To some degree, it's that the (boss) is drawn to certain characteristics, and they tend to put more weight on that," Seawright said. "What can happen, unfortunately, is that they miss more important job-related traits.

        "It hurts employment in the long run because there are talented people out there who are not tall, blond, slender and attractive," Seawright said.

        Engemann and Owyang said that in some cases, the attractive are simply more self-confident because of their good looks. For jobs in which interpersonal interaction is important, that increased confidence can result in better communications skills that may improve job performance.

        "Employers might believe that customers or co-workers want to interact with more-attractive people," the researchers wrote.

        The research indicates that some people who are obese may be held back by health factors or low self-esteem. Yet discrimination also seemed to play a role. Researchers said the wage differential for obese women seemed to be limited to white women, "which seems to contradict an unmeasured productivity explanation."

        Owyang and Engemann also cited a study indicating the beauty premium existed, even for occupations that do not require frequent interpersonal contact.

        "As these results suggest, disentangling the effects of productivity differences and discrimination can be problematic," Owyang said. "Though discrimination is a possible explanation, anti-discrimination laws might not guarantee that these wage differentials would evaporate.

        "Unmeasurable productivity might still result in pay disparities, and CEOs might still be tall.",1413,200~20954~2804684,00.html#

        There are three kinds of people: Those who see; those who see when they are shown; those who do not see.

        by Shadowthief on Sun Apr 17, 2005 at 04:04:11 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Oh who said that? (none)
        ..just curious.

        ...she's a smoker..big time... and she stopped drinking altogether in 2002.  She's talked about that.  That's always one of the biggest factors in weight gain/loss - drinking.  And i suspect that she tried to give up smoking in the past, based on a conversation... and that always effect weight gain/loss

        As for her looks, she has been at other points in her film career, "Steal this Movie" and "Clay Piegons" come to mind.

        •  Here are a couple of quotes (none)
          pulled from a quick web search.

          "Remember the days when Janeane Garafalo was hot in her short-round-brunette way? Remember when she shone in those funny-sidekick roles? Then she tried to take the lead in romantic comedies, which didn't quite work. But we still loved her and we all wanted to be cool like her. Now she's a scary skinny blonde who rants about politics on the radio. It's a sad world."

          "And yes, that is Janeane. Can't quite believe it myself. The short, short bangs? The bad, bad hair? The skinny, skinny arms? What is going on here? I read on Gawker that she's been sighted in and around the greater New York area looking like suck, and here's photographic proof."

          If you visit the website for the second quote, it includes a picture of Janeane.

          Janeane at one time also took "medication" to lose weight. On Air America, I have heard her guests rib her for being so thin.

          •  that's an old photo (none)
            ..from two years ago.  I didn't like the color either... she bleached it for about one year after her anti-invasion activism.  She's talked about the harrassment she got.  I almost think she colored it in hopes that less people would recognize her.

            at the NYC convention last august she was back to brunett, and she looked fine.

            in the HBO doc "left of the dial", she looked better then during her drinking days, but not sick thin.

            here's a photo of her from about ten days ago from her blog.



            •  I really wasn't trying (none)
              to get in the way of you and your Garafolo crush (though I kinda liked the blonde hair), I was just trying to point out that even she has been critiqued over her weight.

              You wanna know something funny? I went over to Freeper land to see what they were saying about Coulter, and LOL, there were like five different diaries devoted to her Time story! And check this out--they weren't completely positive. There were a bunch of comments about how she needed to gain weight, and one guy even said that no one would care about her if she wasn't a sort of attractive blonde. I'm telling you, if we ignored her, she'd have to roll up in a ball and die!

              •  Oh. thanks...and you're right. (none)
                You know, I think she's really charismatic.  She's been making me laugh for 15 years.  

                You may remember in the mid 1990s J and Ben Stiller co-hosted the MTV movie awards.  She did a bit were she did an ambush interview with Mel Gibson.  The questions were funny and polite - nothing shocking.  Gibson who's a fan of the Three Stooges and produced a TV biopic on them, freaked out walked out.  It was a big deal, Garofalo scares off William Wallace...

                I had no idea she was political, just honest about comedy - she left SNL after a few shows, because it sucked.

                And when she co-hosted Crossfire for two weeks back in 2003, she was awesome.  so well read, consistently refused to take Tucker's lame bait and called it unproductive and cartoonish.

                As for coulter.. you're completely right.  

                what bothers me is not her, you can get that kind of HATE right now by turning on the radio.

                The issue is not her...forget her...

                Rather it Time. How any so-called news mag coddle and attempt to elevate and sanitize someone (anyone - she's irrelvant) who advocated bombing the NYT building and violence against President Clinton.  

                And while I agree with Time's Point of View less then half of the time, at least they were respectible.  I mean even National Review Fired her.  This would be like Time honoring "The Turner Diaries" with a book award.  The issue is Time taking leave of her senses.. and slanting so far to the right.

  •  Tourette's (none)
    Ann Coulter is the right wing's answer to Tourette Syndrome. You can never predict what she's going to say, except that it's going to be inappropriate.
  •  Online Poll (none)
    There is a poll on the left-side of the this page.

    "Does Ann Coulter make a positive contribution to American political culture?"

  •  Ann Coulter came to my town... (none)
    In 2003, for a Building Industry Association fundraiser. There were, by all accounts, more people protesting outside than paying for seats inside. One of the Upstanding Members of Society paying to see her (Chamber of Commerce member) actually punched a protester in the face. I couldn't help but feel that Coulter and her violent rhetoric were part of why that would happen. Somebody disagrees with you. Punch 'em in the face.

    I really don't get her. I mean -- I get her, she's a mentally unstable attention hog, probably suffering from some form of narcissistic personality disorder. She has made herself, through diet, probably hair dye, and possibly plastic surgery, into an exaggerated parody of an attractive female.

    What I don't get is her popularity. Her bestsellers. Her television appearences. Do people find her entertaining? Informative? It's difficult to imagine. I don't get how she can basically make death threats against half the population of this country and FBI agents don't come to her door in the middle of the night.

    There seems to be this perception -- demonstrated by USA Today having her cover the Democratic National Convention -- that there is some kind of balance going on. Like, "oh, well, you have people on the right like Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh, and then on the left you have Michael Moore and Al Franken." But there isn't a balance. Michael Moore doesn't make death threats against Republicans. In fact, he seems to hold out great hope that ordinary Republican voters are well-meaning people who are just misguided.

    USA Today seemed to recognize that there was no balance when they decided not to run Coulter's column after all, though they did run Moore's coverage of the Republican Convention. But somehow that knowledge didn't stick, didn't mimetically propogate.

    Now she's on the cover of Time.

    I sort of know why people like Limbaugh. I think he flatters a certain kind of guy -- mostly guys -- by reinforcing their prejudices and stroking their self-centered worldview. Yes, yes, when you fail it's the fault of Democrats or illegal aliens, but when other people fail they're losers, and you don't owe 'em nothin'. Those feminazis (who won't date you), they're feminazis, aren't they?

    But Coulter is so far gone it's difficult to imagine what her fans are getting out of her rants. There seems to be a kind of cultish worship of her, as an icon of dominating sexuality (sort of an Ilsa the She-Wolf of the SS kind of thing), but her fans don't quote her the way they do Limbaugh.

    By the way, that alleged adam's apple is seen in over-30 women with extremely low body fat, or who have had face lifts and such. Look closely at pictures of aging starlets and you'll see what I mean.

  •  Time today (none)
    Playboy tommorrow, when her 15 minutes are up she will seek attention elsewhere and Playboy will be all that is left.

    Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter - Martin Luther King

    by Do Something on Sun Apr 17, 2005 at 02:50:45 PM PDT

  •  The TIME online graphic is now available (none)

    Well-behaved women rarely make history - Laurel Thatcher Ulrich

    by jaysea on Sun Apr 17, 2005 at 02:53:56 PM PDT

  •  Yet another reason (none)
    that I can use to justify letting my long-time subscription lapse.

    It started as a high school graduation gift, and ran pretty much uninterrupted until a couple of months ago (FratBoy's face on the cover yet again - I'd had enough).

    Their covers were consistently punchier than any other newsweekly, though the regular writers have all pretty much degenerated into repetitive babble (Hugh Sidey will likely keep phoning them in from beyond his grave).

    Hunter Thompson had it right, as usual, when he said "Time magazine just institutionalizes common knowledge."

    I suppose there are some wingnuts who'll see this as their due after enduring Michael Moore on the cover last fall.

    But Ann/Man? She's not worth the air and space she takes up.

    "...psychopaths have little difficulty infiltrating the domains of...politics, law enforcement, (and) government." Dr. Robert Hare

    by RubDMC on Sun Apr 17, 2005 at 02:56:44 PM PDT

  •  Bookstores (none)
    I have noticed something a bit eerie and that is that many American bookstores are stocked to the brim with right-wing pornography, but have little or no modern progressive books.
    Most B. Daltons prominently display Hannity, O'Reilly, Limbaugh, and EW Coulter. But theer are no Michael Moore books, Al Franken books, and not even "America the Book" from the Daily Show.
    I noticed that while I was in Canada the bookstores were stocked the opposite. They had like EVERY book Michael Moore ever wrote, and shelf after shelf of America the Book.
    Some now carry "What's the Matter with Kansas" but that's just a critique of the right-wing, not a genuinely progressive book.
    Does Fox own B. Dalton? Who owns what bookstores and gets to say what books are on sale?

    You go to war with the defense secretary you have, not the defense secretary you might want or wish to have.

    by Bill Blanc on Sun Apr 17, 2005 at 03:09:01 PM PDT

    •  Hmmm, could it just be the location.. (none)
      ...where abouts have you noticed this.

      I haven't seen that trend, but I don't recall going into a B Dalton.

      To be real honest, the average wingnut doesn't even read a sunday paper....the watch Foxx, etc.  While they may buy a winger book, it's out of solidarity (they're not going to read it).

      The way besieged Howard Stern fans gobbled up his two books in the early 90s.  The felt besieged because they were fans of the radio show, and because of the attacks: he got massive FCC fines, his sponsers were constantly attacke by the rapture right... affilates would take him off.  And has you capture, the average winger feels besieged for his lot in life, because he refuses to take responsibility.

    •  I take all of the right wing books (none)
      and either put in the back, behind lots of other books, or cover them up with the most boring books I can find.  Then I move all of the progressives' books to prominent posisitions. I am totally against banning any books, but the wingers' books don't have to be so prominently displayed all of the time either.

      "If you are not outraged, you are not paying attention."

      by adigal on Sun Apr 17, 2005 at 03:36:39 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Yikes!!!... (none)
    ...I won't register with Time just to read the rest of this crap!  If this is what Time has been reduced to, I'd rather be reading Star magazine because it would have slightly more value than this.

    Be the creature. (But not a Republican.)

    by boran2 on Sun Apr 17, 2005 at 03:32:27 PM PDT

  •  That's not your mother....... (none)
    THAT'S A MAN, BABY!!!!!!


    "In a republic this rule ought to be observed: that the majority should not have the predominant power." - Cicero

    by KOWALSKI on Sun Apr 17, 2005 at 03:35:28 PM PDT

  •  Ann Coulter - The Gift that Keeps on Giving (none)
    If there's any way this can be sent to Time, somebody please do so. :)

    'Twas spinning, and the slimy Pubs
    Did gyre and gimble in the wabe;
    All mimsy were the plutocrats,
    And the pundits outgrabe.

    "Beware the GOP, my son!
    The jaws that lie, the claws that catch!
    Beware the Dubya bird, and shun
    The frumious Coultersnatch!"

    He took his truthful sword in hand:
    Long time the 'phantine foe he sought--
    So rested he by the Taxcut tree,
    And stood awhile in thought.

    And, as in uffish thought he stood,
    The GOP, with eyes of blame,
    Came whiffling where the Wal-Mart stood,
    And burbled as it came!

    One two! One two! And through and through
    The truthful blade went snicker-snack!
    He left it dead, and with its head
    He went galumphing back.

    "And hast thou slain the GOP?
    Come to my arms, my beamish boy!
    O frabjous day! Callooh! Callay!"
    He chortled in his joy.

    'Twas spinning, and the slimy Pubs
    Did gyre and gimble in the wabe;
    All mimsy were the plutocrats,
    And the pundits outgrabe.

    Defend your freedom, one threatened judge at a time.

    by cskendrick on Sun Apr 17, 2005 at 03:39:40 PM PDT

  •  i can't believe ann coulter's on the cover of time (none)
    she's not even a person, much less one worth writing home about, much less one worth the waste of national media coverage.  they should have just mentioned in her in one of the many cancer issues.

    "It says in the Bible that the morning-after pill is wrong. I believe the passage is Pharmaceuticals 3:16." -Adrian Roy, Systems Analyst

    by mediaprisoner on Sun Apr 17, 2005 at 04:38:16 PM PDT

  •  Coulter is Hitler (none)
    So...Ann Coulter is on the front cover of Time.

    I wonder who will be placed on the front next week?

    The American Nazi Party?
    Fred Phelps?
    The KKK?

    Coulter is the most racist, disgusting piece of shit in this country, and perhaps the world.

    Time has just given the finger to Muslims and Arab-Americans.

    Anyone who wonders about racism in America today need only view the front cover of a leading magazine. They will find an endorsement of it.

  •  Sieg Heil !! Time Hearts Fascism (none)
    She's irrelevant, Time could have put on a brown shirt by putting various other HATE/SMEAR merchants on the cover -- Heil Hannity, O'Lielly, Michael Wiener(savage); Gannon.

    The point is not who Time choose to Salute with a Sieg Heil - The point is that they jumped off the cliff into the pit of Darkness, HATE, and Fascism.

    You'll be sorry day a Coulter clone will call for violence on your building, the was she called on violence for the NYT building... and you will have enabled them.

  •  Time has long been the PRAVDA of America... (none)
    This cover is not a surprise. It has been over twenty five years since Time did anything with sny News value.
  •  Dude, (none)
    ...that chick is totally a Morlock.

    if ( $bush->speak() ) { $lie = true; }

    by mighty monkey on Sun Apr 17, 2005 at 06:43:10 PM PDT

  •  Time's in terminal decline, it's that simple (none)
    Time's circulation is declining, even as the rest of the industry stabilized: Consumer Magazine Circ Decline Halted in First-Half 2004. They're trying to attract more readers by pandering to the extreme right. A few weeks ago they did a cover on the "25 most influential evangelicals." I doubt it will help them, but it does explain this week's cover.
  •  I canceled my subscription to Time (none)
    as soon as I heard this.

    And I let them know why.

  •  Ann's young fans (none)
    At the Coulter picture gallery at they show her signing a students shirt and said typically hundreds of students line up to see her when she makes a university appearance.

    It is so scary that so many young people are so into hatemongering brownshirt conservatism.  I came of age in the early 90's and didn't think it could get much worse.  It is better now in the sense of liberal young people finally getting active again.  But it seems that Kerry's under 30 victory is the exception in a world of numbers showing that the youngest people lean in a naively free market direction.  Not to mention the mainstream youth websites and culture (Fark, South Park, etc.) where the libertarian anti-PC politics of spite seem to rule.  

    When is the pendulum FINALLY swinging back?  I think the mainstream youth will finally have to start seeing how ridiculous things are getting.  Most of them don't want theocracy and gay concentration camps at least.  

    Check out my lte archive at and feel free to use my ideas for your own lte's.

    by DemDachshund on Sun Apr 17, 2005 at 07:30:42 PM PDT

    •  when ever.... (none)
      these type of clowns show up at local colleges in the town I was living at the time (or am currently living) I try and make it a point to go with marine and army brochures and hand them out (Ive only actually done it twice...).  I call the guys that wont take them pussies.  I am not even big and they dont say shit because they are.......  people need to make these kids work an honest day and step up and walk the walk.

      I say the same things to people driving hummers.  Just last week I rolled up to an H2 with some sub 30 guys in it.  I was in a civic.  My buddy signaled to them to roll down thier window and said "dude you must have a dick like this big" holding up his thumb and index finger about an inch apart.... they did not say a word.

      I think we have to take the fight to them directly.  Its the only thing that will get through to them.  I would never actually fight anyone but I think to some extent fire needs to be fought with fire.  Mabey that will make the pendulum swing back.  Mabey if these kids have something thrown right in their face they will question what the fuck they are doing.  

      But thats just my theory.

      "Global deaths due to hunger in one year= 8,760,000"

      by Sausalito on Sun Apr 17, 2005 at 07:59:32 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Good for you (none)
        I am all in favor of confronting conservatives and using their own mean, insulting medicine on the mean, insulting ones.  I wish other liberals weren't into being so nice and diplomatic... these righties are committing evil and on some level they know it.  We need to get in their cowardly, smug faces with a real message about how destructive and mean they are being.  Keep up the good work.

        Check out my lte archive at and feel free to use my ideas for your own lte's.

        by DemDachshund on Sun Apr 17, 2005 at 08:10:14 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Ann "The Man" Coulter (none)
    The good news is that being the subject of a cover story by a magazine like Time or Newsweek is almost always a sign that you've already peaked and that your notoriety or celebrityhood has begun circling the drain.
  •  Wow. (4.00)
    I've never seen such a bigoted group of "progressives" before in my life.  

    Why is this "Ann the man" thing such a joke?  I'm a male-to-female transsexual.  I have an Adam's apple.  Am I a joke to you?  

    I'm going to wager a guess that this kind of truly hateful talk would not be allowed against gays, women, racial minorities, etc.  Transsexuals, though, no biggie.  I take all of these comments about Ann Coulter very personally - I've heard every one of them.  Some of you really need to check your attitudes, fast.

    •  Uh, last I checked Ann is NOT a transsexual, and (none)
      why you are taking this personally is beyond me.  No one here is making fun of transsexuals.  
      •  Uh (none)
        Last I checked, these people were throwing real life slurs that are used against real life transsexuals every day.  Uh, last I checked, transsexual women were being killed at the rate of about two a month, so this kind of talk really isn't much of a joke.  Uh, last I checked, people here are making plenty of fun of being transsexual, though they happen to be poking fun at a woman who is not trans herself.  

        Uh, last I checked, this kind of thing was unacceptable in "progressive" communities.  

        •  People HERE were throwing slurs against (none)
          transexuals?  On Dkos?!  No way.  I don't see anyone here in this progressive community making fun of transexuals.  If so, cite the link.

          You are speaking with someone who happens to be GLBT sensitive.  I'm not offended by this Coulter thread.   Sorry you feel this way.

          •  The poster's point (none)
            is that people were speaking disparingly about Coulter because she looked "mannish"--as if this is some great sin and is what makes her worthy of our contempt (as opposed to her real problem, which is her hateful/racist statements). Like Coulter, transgendered people are also bashed and attacked because their appearance often straddles gender lines.

            I was actually going to post something earlier about how many of the comments in here were likely hurtful to members of the transgender community, but since I was already being taken to task for being too defensive, I chickened out. Now I'm sorry I did.

            Reading over all the comments in this diary, I'm disgusted by the degree to which so many of them are nothing more or less than scathing attacks on a woman's appearance. On that note, I'm encouraged by the posts, in which posters actually took the time to contact Time and let their feelings on Coulter be known in a factual and well thought out fashion. They accomplished something good and no one was hurt in the process.  

  •  She's cute! She's a fucking whore!!! (none)
    This crazy bitch really gets my blood boiling, which I'm sure would make her very happy.  I don't know why, but she absolutely pushes all of my buttons and I just want to toss her off a cliff.  This a truly mean spirited woman with a black heart.

    It's be nice if she had a really ugly scandal, like her having illicit sex with Ralph Reed...oh, great, now I've got a visual.  Have to go vomit now...

    "I don't want to bring politics into this, I'm just here for the drugs." Nancy Reagan, at a "Just Say No" event, 1986

    by Jack109 on Sun Apr 17, 2005 at 10:19:20 PM PDT

  •  My letter. (none)
    To the Editors:

    I am frankly shocked by your cover story on Ann Coulter.  This individual trades only in ad hominem, smear, and falsehood.  She adds nothing to our national discourse, in fact diminishes it.  By giving her this kind of free publicity you are giving her more influence, and this is bad for the country.

    Make no mistake: My objection is not her politics.  Republican, Democrat, indedendent: We need all kinds of pundits.  But we do not need pundits who trade in lies and hate, who wish violence on those with whom they disgress (see her remark about McVeigh and the NY Times building).  If you are unaware of her problem with lying, please spend five minutes looking at the file on her kept by the non-partisan  And find out about her slander against Max Cleland.

    If I subscribed to Time, I would cancel.  I will certainly encourage my friends to do so.

    We're just getting started.

    by jem6x on Sun Apr 17, 2005 at 10:38:30 PM PDT

    Then on March 19, all charges were dismissed against the "Deliverance" boys - including a felony charge for $3,000 worth of damage to school property. Inexplicably, this outcome did not instantly lead to widespread rioting and looting in South Central Los Angeles. Democrat Barbara LaWall is the Pima County attorney who allowed the liberal debate champions to walk. LaWall brags on her Web site about "holding criminals accountable." She didn't say anything about liberals, however. Be forewarned, conservatives: Do not expect the law to protect you in Pima County.
    Pima County prosecutors plan to take another shot at two men accused of throwing pies at political writer Ann Coulter, even though she didn't show up at their first trial last month. The Pima County Attorney's Office intends to refile misdemeanor criminal damage and assault charges against Phillip Edgar Smith and William Zachary Wolff in connection with an Oct. 22 incident involving Coulter at UA's Centennial Hall, said Chief Criminal Deputy David Berkman. Smith and Wolff were scheduled to go to trial March 18, but neither Coulter nor the arresting officer showed up, Berkman said. As a result, Deputy County Attorney Carlos Betancourt was forced to ask that the case be dismissed, with the understanding that it could be refiled, Berkman said. His request was granted. Coulter was sent repeated notices of the court date, and she will be notified of the new court date as well, Berkman said. He said it should also be noted that Coulter never contacted prosecutors to find out the resolution of the case. Coulter couldn't be reached for comment late Friday.
  •  A cultural observation (none)
    Our culture's obsession with "just coming out and saying it" (and its corollary that anyone with tact and with the sense to hold things back is therefore some kind of liar) helps Ann Coulter, since she thereby gets credit for "coming out and saying" things (never mind the fact that the things she comes out and says are complete lunacy).  The Time piece, judging from Kos's excerpt of it, is a perfect example of this.  

    And I'm boycotting Time from now on.  (We should also boycott Newsweek for that insipid Barack Obama portrait a few months back.)

  •  Clare Booth Luce (none)
    was just as vile a racist as Annie.
    This magazine has a history of this stuff.
    Her husband was Henry Luce, the editor of TIME.
    What is so surprising about putting her, or Hitler, or Pol Pot on the cover?

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site