Posted on 12/19/2004 6:28:39 AM PST by KMC1
"Conservative Celebrity Showdown"
Today's Match-Up:
Ann Coulter vs. Laura Ingraham
From a media perspective - who has had a bigger impact? Who is hotter as of present? And who do you think long term will have the lasting legacy?
Both came of "age" (media wise) during the Impeachment of President Bill Clinton. Along with the third blonde-haired pundit by the name of Barbara Olson, these three beauties took on the law-breaking Clinton regime one talk show at a time.
Ann's first book (published at that time) has now become standard text for Impeachment laws in several lawschools. Laura followed by releasing her first book on Hillary.
But in those days it was nearly impossible to go a night without seeing one or both of these Constitutional Lawyers on television - arguing for the rule of law - and tearing apart the liars like Lanny Davis who were paid for their ability to misrepresent the President's case night after night.
MEDIA ADVANTAGE THEN: Ingraham - who besides being a pundit on dozens of shows, had landed her own show weekday mornings on MSNBC.
In print Ann became known for her "fiery vitriol" (as the mainstream press would put it). Ann would always then defend herself with the honest observation - "When a liberal makes an impassioned case - their labeled 'courageous' and 'passionate'. When a conservative does it their labeled 'angry, virtiolic, and out of touch'".
Nonetheless Ann would have columns spike from time to time. Even her longtime friend David Horowitz canceled Ann's column.
But whatever the negative consequences, publishers saw gold. Now in four back to back to back to back works Ann has achieved what precious few have in conservative publishing circles... 4 Consecutive New York Time's Bestseller status. And in her second offering SLANDER she sat atop the NYTB list longer than any other conservative title - ever published.
Laura has tried her hand twice at the book thing. Both time moderately successful - but no where near the franchise that Coulter has.
PRINT ADVANTAGE THEN AND NOW: Coulter, Coulter, Coulter, Coulter.
For a good long while after impeachment and following the loss of her television show - Laura Ingraham disappeared somewhat from public view. After the loss of her TV show she made frequently fewer TV appearances, tried her hand a bit at talk radio - but that too seemed to flop - and went nowhere fast.
Coulter on the other hand - with her steady stream of books - her "always available" attitude towards major media, and the continuation of her still often controversial column landed her plenty of TV and radio spots.
MEDIA ADVANTAGE POST IMPEACHMENT, PRE 9/11: Coulter - she was still everywhere, all the time.
September 11th seems to have been a gut-check for both of these extremely accomplished women.
Ingraham reappeared on the scene and with more energy than ever. Funnier than ever, the signature Ingraham dry wit seemed even quicker than before. Eventually re-making her entire radio image, the launch of Ingraham's second book dwarfed the sales of her first. She was back and not just satisfied to sit around. As of this writing she has moved to 5th place in terms of most syndicated radio outlets in America. She trails only Rush Limbaugh, Howard Stern, Sean Hannity, and Laura Schlessinger. The mix of Ingraham's dry and witty observations on everything from politics, to media bias, to pop culture coupled with her ability to really warm up to and pull the most interesting information out of those that she even vehemently disagrees with - has sent the Ingraham franchise stock - through the roof.
Following 9/11 it was not blatantly obvious to most if Coulter had been as dramatically impacted. Obviously Coulter had never disengaged from the public eye - so on a lot of levels whatever changes may have occurred could have been more subtle. Which is exactly my opinion of the situation... Following 9/11 Coulter became even more deeply "Ann". She wrote even more sharply and to the point. Her mind became like a guided laser cutting through the falsehoods of liberalism with even more exacting purpose and aim. She continued to write, cranking out bestsellers, and doing lots of media.
MEDIA ADVANTAGE NOW:Tied - but in radio terms Ingraham has "a bullet" beside her name pointing up.
These two are truly an interesting pair.
To my knowledge they have never appeared publicly together. If you listen to Laura's broadcast - she refers to nearly every other Conservative Icon in the world - accept the one woman who has lifted conservatism to new heights - Coulter. On the other hand - the only time I've heard Ann refer to Laura was in a private discussion I had in a New York restraunt with her some 4 years ago - she seemed unaware of who Ingraham was and referred to her as "Laura Een-grah-ham" (not the typical Een-gram).
They both have a thorough understanding of the Constitution and have clerked for some huge names on Federal Courts.
They both claim Christianity as their faith. Ingraham recently becoming a deeply committed Catholic, and Coulter a professing Presbyterian evangelical.
As to who will leave the longest lasting impact on the world around her?
Obviously Coulter's books will last long after she does. But media insider's believe that Laura's skill in radio will most likely make her the heir apparent to the Rush Limbaugh empire (leap-frogging Sean Hannity). Most media pundits believe that while Hannity wants to be "the biggest name in talk radio", that Ingraham is focusing on the details of what it takes to be the best at the craft.
But now we put it to you - Coulter vs. Ingraham - Who's bigger, hotter, and will leave the longest lasting imprint on the world...?
This is an excerpt, to read more click here...
Laura mentioned Friday morning that she had a date with her at the White House party the night before.
OTOH, too bad, seems like I've got competition already! She really is pretty, though.
Plus it doesn't hurt that she was part of the Dartmouth rightist scene, as recorded in Poisoned Ivy by Benjamin Hart (son of National Reveiw columnist Jeff Hart). Hart wrote his book in 1984 (with an introduction written by William F. Buckley, Jr.), when Ingraham will have been entering her senior year and Hart was three years out of school. I have a signed copy.
Laura Ingraham wrote an article when she was a sophomore, during the fall semester in 1982, in which she criticized William Cole, who taught music history at Dartmouth. Cole, enraged, delivered a philippic in class against Ingraham and The Dartmouth Review, which had carried her critical article. He demanded an apology which he absolutely didn't get -- his tirade in class having been written up accurately in a followup article in the Review -- because Cole was turned down flat by chairman/editor-in-chief Dinesh D'Souza (another fragrant conservative name), who backed up Ingraham all the way.
Beside himself with fury, Professor Cole tracked down Ingraham and came to her dorm room about 8:30 on a Sunday morning, the day after the article ran, and pounded on her door for some twenty minutes demanding admission. Her roommate, petrified, refused to open the door more than a crack, in tears at the torrent of Billingsgate coming through the door.
The professor was duly reported to the administration, which proceeded to give him the lightest of slaps on the wrist. Asked about the wrist-slap, the dean of the faculty told the Review, "I don't know what it's like to be a black man. He's obviously under emotional stress."
At the next Tuesday's class, the professor persisted, lambasting the class in eleven-lettered epithets to describe Laura Ingraham and whoever was debriefing to her for her articles. "I'm the professor...I have a Ph.D. You all are ignorant.....You are all responsible for this, because you are [Laura Ingraham's] peers, and some of you know her, or are her accomplices."
Then Prof. Cole suspended classes for two weeks, declared further attendance optional, and dropped all further course requirements except the final exam. Then he sued Laura Ingraham, The Dartmouth Review, and the rest of the Review staff for $2.2 million. The suit was still pending when Hart went to press. (Anyone know how that lawsuit came out?)
Wow! I didn't realize Laura had such a long history in political punditry! Engenders even more respect for her--thanks for sharing that story.
Poor Professor Cole (not!) Couldn't stand up to an undergrad...Of course, as Laura knew then and we know now, it was his political philosophy that didn't measure up.
Presto. Man and philosophy -- call it a "total package failure".
Earlier, author Hart (who graduated Dartmouth in 1981) had a run-in of his own, in which another black faculty member (what is it about these guys) tracked him down and attacked him, taking him to Fist City from the jump. Hart grabbed the guy and tried a wrestling move to control him, a headlock -- the guy responded by biting him in the chest, producing a four-inch gash through Hart's shirt.
It ain't just Tyson, y'all.
That, or get tinted contacts.
BKO
Some years back, I picked up some ragazine in the doctor's office that had an article about interesting women in politics. Ann was one of them, and it claimed her to be about six feet tall.
I just don't know whether this was a source you can trust.
I, too, am very enamored of Michelle Malkin.
http://www.michellemalkin.com
That is her website.
Her full articles are almost always a thing of beauty to read. It always seems she is seated next to you talking with you. She is brilliant and she does not hold back (similar to Ann Coulter) but she does it in her own style.
Mona Charen and Linda Chavez are two other women commentators who do excellent work.
The ambiance in this photo could determine the game.
"I'm still ticked off at Matthews for the way he treated her. I loved it when Zell stood up for her."
Michelle Malkin is young and brilliant, and a target for "liberal" complaints to editors who publish her columns. I never watch Chris Matthews who I suspect has to be on Meth to have such a hyper motor-mouth. Why does this obnoxious and rude Matthews enjoy popularity and success?
TV punditry is so superficial and prescripted that it makes a better sitcom for parody.
Zell Miller has too much integrity and a too strong sense of honor for a Democrat.
I like them both.
Am happy to listen to and read both, but Laura wins hands-down if we're just going on attractiveness. It's no contest.
There's those manhands again.
He treated her with no respect just because she was a young woman. I haven't watched his show since.
Someone give that woman a sandwich.....
Eat, ANN!!! EAT!!!!
Actually neither one has a pair that is interesting.....
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.