Skip to comments.Banned in Boston: The Ann Coulter Column (with USA Today's editorial comments)
Posted on 07/27/2004 6:24:47 AM PDT by Rummyfan
Banned In Boston! The Ann Coulter Column Too Hot for USA Today
by Ann Coulter Posted Jul 26, 2004
Ann Coulter, the witty, vivacious HUMAN EVENTS columnist and best-selling author, was hired by USA Today to offer commentary about this weeks Democratic National Convention, but her first column was summarily rejected late last night.
Apparently," said Coulter, "USA Today doesnt like my tone, humor, sarcasm, etc. etc., which raises the intriguing question of why they hired me to write for them in the first place. Perhaps they thought they were getting Catherine Coulter.
In a sort of package deal, USA Today plans to have Michael Moore offer commentary at the Republican National Convention next month. My guess is they will get his humor said Coulter. We agree.
Below is the Coulter column, in full, that caused all the ruckus. Coulter says: "Examples of their specific complaints are in ALL CAPS below. (Most of it was nonspecific B.S. about not liking my 'tone' and my column not being 'humorous' or 'coherent')."
USA Today promised us a comment on the Coulter imbroglio, which we will post as soon as we get it.
HUMAN EVENTS has learned that conservative columnist Jonah Goldberg of National Review will be Ann Coulter's replacement for the USA Today convention commentary and has confirmed that Michael Moore will provide liberal commentary during the GOP Convention. (For more on this developing story, click here.)
Here at the Spawn of Satan convention in Boston, conservatives are deploying a series of covert signals to identify one another, much like gay men do. My allies are the ones wearing crosses or American flags. The people sporting shirts emblazoned with the "F-word" are my opponents. Also, as always, the pretty girls and cops are on my side, most of them barely able to conceal their eye-rolling.
USA Today: EYE-ROLLING? AT WHAT?
Democrats are constantly suing and slandering police as violent, fascist racists -- with the exception of Boston's police, who'll be lauded as national heroes right up until the Democrats pack up and leave town on Friday, whereupon they'll revert to their natural state of being fascist, racist pigs.
USA Today: WHAT DEMOCRATS SUE THE POLICE? BUT THEY WON'T ACTUALLY REVERT TO BEING FASCIST PIGS, DON'T YOU MEAN THE DEMS WILL THINK THEY HAVE REVERTED TO BEING FASCIST PIGS?
A speaker at the Democratic National Convention this year, Al Sharpton, accused white police officers of raping and defacing Tawana Brawley in 1987, lunatic charges that eventually led to a defamation lawsuit against Sharpton and even more eventually, to Sharpton paying a jury award to the defamed plaintiff Steve Pagones. So its a real mystery why cops wouldnt like Democrats.
USA Today: IS THAT LAST SENTENCE SARCASTIC? IF SO, YOU SURE LOST ME.
As for the pretty girls, I can only guess that its because liberal boys never try to make a move on you without the UN Security Council's approval. Plus, its no fun riding around in those dinky little hybrid cars. 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.
USA Today: NOT FUNNY, I DON'T GET IT.
Apparently, the nuts at the Democratic National Convention are going to be put in cages outside the convention hall. Sadly, they won't be fighting to the death as is done in WWE caged matches. They're calling this the "protestor's area," although I suppose a better name would be the "truth-free zone".
USA Today: CLARIFY WHICH NUTS (NOTE FROM AC: THAT KILLS THE JOKE OF THE NEXT PARAGRAPH)
I thought this was a great idea until I realized the nut category did not include Sharpton, Al Gore, Bill Clinton, and Teddy Kennedy -- all featured speakers at the convention. Id say the actual policy is only untelegenic nuts get the cages, but little Dennis Kucinich is speaking at the Convention, too. So it must be cages for nuts who have not run for president as serious candidates for the Democratic Party.
Looking at the line-up of speakers at the Convention, I have developed the 7-11 challenge: I will quit making fun of, for example, Dennis Kucinich, if he can prove he can run a 7-11 properly for 8 hours. Well even let him have an hour or so of preparation before we open up. Within 8 hours, the money will be gone, the store will be empty, and hell be explaining how three 11-year olds came in and asked for the money and he gave it to them.
USA Today: I DON'T GET IT.
For 20 years, the Democrats wouldnt let Jimmy Carter within 100 miles of a Convention podium. The fact that Carter is now their most respectable speaker tells you where that party is today. Maybe they just want to remind Americans who got us into this Middle East mess in the first place. Weve got millions of fanatical Muslims trying to slaughter Americans while shouting Allah Akbar! Yeah, lets turn the nation over to these guys.
With any luck, Gore will uncork his speech comparing Republicans to Nazis. Just a few weeks ago, Gore gave a speech accusing the Bush administration of deploying digital Brown Shirts to intimidate journalists and pressure the media into writing good things about Bush -- in case you were wondering where all those glowing articles about Bush were coming from.
The last former government official to slake his thirst so deeply with the kool-aid and become a far-left peacenik was Ramsey Clarke and it took him a few years to really blossom. Clinton must have done some number on Gore. Then again, with his yen for earth tones in a man's wardrobe, maybe Gore's references to "Brown Shirts" was intended as a compliment.
Only one major newspaper -- the Boston Herald -- reported Gores Brown Shirt comment, though a Bush campaign spokesman's statement quoting the "Brown Shirt" line made it into the very last sentence of a Los Angeles Times article. The New York Times responded with an article criticizing both Republicans and Democrats for using Nazi imagery. Democrats call Republicans Nazis, the Republicans quote the Democrats calling Republicans Nazis and both are using Nazi imagery. (Its a cycle of violence!)
The nuts in the cages are virtual Bertrand Russells compared to the official speakers at the Democratic Convention. On the basis of their placards, I gather the caged-nut position is that they love the troops so much, they dont want them to get hurt defending America from terrorist attack. Support the troops, the signs say, bring them home.
Thats my new position on all government workers, except the 5% who arent useless, which is to say cops, prosecutors, firemen and U.S. servicemen. I love bureaucrats at the National Endowment of the Arts funding crucifixes submerged in urine so much -- I think they should go home. I love public school teachers punishing any mention of God and banning Christmas songs so much -- I think they should go home.
Walking back from the convention site I chatted with a normal Bostonian for several blocks -- who must have identified me through our covert system of signals. He was mostly bemused by the Democrats primetime speakers and told me he used to be an independent, but for the last 20 years found himself voting mostly Republican. Then he corrected himself and said he votes for the American.
Id say I love all these Democrats in Boston so much I want them to go home, but I dont. I want Americans to get a good long look at the French Party and keep the 7-11 challenge in mind.
USA Today: WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY "THE FRENCH PARTY"? I DON'T GET IT.
The comments prove that the liberals have no sense of humor or concept of reality.
Funniest damn article I've read in a long time. The eds at USAToday are either idiots, or cowards. Or perhaps as liberals, they're both.
Those obtuse comments could only come from a left wing college journalist.Hilarious.
Shouldn't they call their paper USSR Today??
If I had paid for a USA today in the last ten years I would write and complain. The only time I have bothered with it is a free copy at a hotel. This Editor is proof that I have saved my money well.
That USA Today is not bankrupt is conclusive evidence that the editors don't make any of the business decisions.
Are you sure it was free? On a recent trip, in the "need an electron microscope to read it" fine print, the hotel bill said that my room rate would be reduced by $0.25 (I think) if I told them not to leave a USA Today.
The "editor" comments prove that the left wing media just doesn't get it. It was a brilliant column, but apparently the leftist/socialist Gannett people think it is a threat. I can remember when some of their newspapers actually had conservative values.
Awesome, loved it!
Utterly astounding. I can't believe this newspaper has the highest circulation rate in the country.
If these comments are legit, then you can see why the Lamestream Media is so lame - they just 100% don't get it - they are lost, living in some other bizarro world!
I'm normally not an Ann fan, but this column was real good. Great read---thanks for the post.
Good Lord, but these people are thick.
I am honestly stunned at how out of touch that editor is.
If you leave out all the copies that lie unread outside of hotel room doors, the circulation isn't that high at all.
There's no way those boldfaced sentences are actual comments from a USAToday editor. I refuse to believe it. I am well aware that liberalism is a mental disorder, but those comments MUST have been written by somebody making fun of the editor. If I am wrong, I will shoot myself in the temple for having ever read (and even subscribed) to that...'news'paper.
That about sums it up right there. USA Today is clueless and should never have agreed to have Ann write for them. Maybe they'll just get 'Bore' Moore to do the writeup for both conventions and pass it off as balanced reporting.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.