To: RaceBannon
Ann doesn't miss a beat.She put this on her own site. It's a picture of Time's picture editor, Mary Anne Golon with some equally unflattering distortion.
Posted on 04/18/2005 3:14:45 PM PDT by RonDog
.
As FReeper Rockitz noted on a previous thread:Certainly some creative FReepers could help Ann exact her revenge...To: RaceBannon
Ann doesn't miss a beat.She put this on her own site. It's a picture of Time's picture editor, Mary Anne Golon with some equally unflattering distortion.
...by posting even MORE unflattering "distorted" images of the TIME magazine staff on this thread.
What a nasty post. When I was her age I was thin and skinny too - under a 100 pounds. You're the JERK with this post.
Ann before she discovered bulimia and botox.
Someone out there in cyberspace may have the TIME picture of Dubya ... where the two tips of the "M" protrude over the top of his head.
mark for tomorrow........
Love Him, Hate Him President (Check out the cover of TIME)
TIME ^ | 11/23/03 | JOHN F. DICKERSON AND KAREN TUMULTY
Posted on 11/23/2003 7:11:53 AM PST by Brian Mosely
There is an axiom in American politics that says whenever a sitting President is running for a second term, the election is more a referendum on him than a judgment on his opponent. President George W. Bush has taken this truism to a new level. With just under a year to go before Nov. 2, 2004, Americans are already finding ways to show how passionately they feel about their President...
CLICK HERE for the rest of that thread
Is Bush the Devil? (Slick Time Photo Layout)
Posted by Rokurota
On News/Activism 05/20/2004 11:32:44 PM PDT · 30 replies · 32+ views
Check out Bush On Cover of Time
Posted by bellevuesbest
On News/Activism 05/20/2004 5:21:49 PM PDT · 96 replies · 166+ views
Time Magazine | 5-24-04 | Time Magazine
Goodbye to all that.
By Jonah Goldberg, NRO Editor
October 3, 2001 2:20 p.m.
Dear Readers,
As many of you may have heard, we've dropped Ann Coulter's column from NRO. This has sparked varying amounts of protest, support, and, most of all, curiosity from our readers. We owe you an explanation.
Of course, we would explain our decision to Ann, but the reality is that she's called the shots from the get-go. It was Ann who decided to sever her ties with National Review — not the other way around.
This is what happened.
In the wake of her invade-and-Christianize-them column, Coulter wrote a long, rambling rant of a response to her critics that was barely coherent. She's a smart and funny person, but this was Ann at her worst — emoting rather than thinking, and badly needing editing and some self-censorship, or what is commonly referred to as "judgment."
Running this "piece" would have been an embarrassment to Ann, and to NRO. Rich Lowry pointed this out to her in an e-mail (I was returning from my honeymoon). She wrote back an angry response, defending herself from the charge that she hates Muslims and wants to convert them at gunpoint.
But this was not the point. It was NEVER the point. The problem with Ann's first column was its sloppiness of expression and thought. Ann didn't fail as a person — as all her critics on the Left say — she failed as WRITER, which for us is almost as bad.
Rich wrote her another e-mail, engaging her on this point, and asking her — in more diplomatic terms — to approach the whole controversy not as a PR-hungry, free-swinging pundit on Geraldo, but as a careful writer.
No response.
Instead, she apparently proceeded to run around town bad-mouthing NR and its employees. Then she showed up on TV and, in an attempt to ingratiate herself with fellow martyr Bill Maher, said we were "censoring" her.
By this point, it was clear she wasn't interested in continuing the relationship.
What publication on earth would continue a relationship with a writer who would refuse to discuss her work with her editors? What publication would continue to publish a writer who attacked it on TV? What publication would continue to publish a writer who lied about it — on TV and to a Washington Post reporter?
And, finally, what CONSERVATIVE publication would continue to publish a writer who doesn't even know the meaning of the word "censorship"?
So let me be clear: We did not "fire" Ann for what she wrote, even though it was poorly written and sloppy. We ended the relationship because she behaved with a total lack of professionalism, friendship, and loyalty.
What's Ann's take on all this? Well, she told the Washington Post yesterday that she loves it, because she's gotten lots of great publicity. That pretty much sums Ann up.
On the Sean Hannity show yesterday, however, apparently embarrassed by her admission to the Post, she actually tried to deny that she has sought publicity in this whole matter. Well, then, Ann, why did you complain of being "censored" on national TV? Why did you brag to the Post about all the PR?
Listening to Ann legalistically dodge around trying to explain all this would have made Bill Clinton blush.
Ann also told the Post that we only paid her $5 a month for her work (would that it were so!). Either this is a deliberate lie, or Ann needs to call her accountant because someone's been skimming her checks.
Many readers have asked, why did we run the original column in which Ann declared we should "invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity" — if we didn't like it?
Well, to be honest, it was a mistake. It stemmed from the fact this was a supposedly pre-edited syndicated column, coming in when NRO was operating with one phone line and in general chaos. Our bad.
Now as far as Ann's charges go, I must say it's hard to defend against them, because they either constitute publicity-minded name-calling, like calling us "girly-boys" — or they're so much absurd bombast.
For example:
* Ann — a self-described "constitutional lawyer" — volunteered on Politically Incorrect that our "censoring" of her column was tantamount to "repealing the First Amendment." Apparently, in Ann's mind, she constitutes the thin blonde line between freedom and tyranny, and so any editorial decision she dislikes must be a travesty.
* She sniffed to the Washington Post's Howard Kurtz that "Every once in awhile they'll [National Review] throw one of their people to the wolves to get good press in left-wing publications." I take personal offense to this charge. She's accusing us of betraying a friend for publicity, when in fact it was the other way around.
* And, lastly, this "Joan of Arc battling the forces of political correctness" act doesn't wash. In the same 20 days in which Ann says — over and over and over again — that NR has succumbed to "PC hysteria," we've run pieces celebrating every PC shibboleth and bogeyman.
Paul Johnson has criticized Islam as an imperial religion. William F. Buckley himself has called, essentially, for a holy war. Rich Lowry wants to bring back the Shah, and I've written that Western Civilization has every right to wave the giant foam "We're Number 1!" finger as high as it wants.
The only difference between what we've run and what Ann considers so bravely iconoclastic on her part, is that we've run articles that accord persuasion higher value than shock value. It's true: Ann is fearless, in person and in her writing. But fearlessness isn't an excuse for crappy writing or crappier behavior.
To be honest, even though there's a lot more that could be said, I have no desire to get any deeper into this because, like with a Fellini movie, the deeper you get, the less sense Ann makes.
We're delighted that FrontPageMagazine has, with remarkable bravery, picked up Ann's column, presumably for only $5 a month. They'll be getting more than what they're paying for, I'm sure.
— Jonah Goldberg
Perfect.
— Jonah Goldberg
I wonder if Mr. Goldberg wishes he had a spine these days
As per what?
Katie Couric: You were also fired, I guess, because you wrote in the National Review that we should -- when it came to fighting terrorism, we should invade their countries, kill their leaders, and convert them to Christianity. Do you still believe that that's the best way to combat terrorism worldwide?
Ann Coulter: Well, that's a somewhat dishonest quote. I was referring to the people in the previous sentence of that column, cheering and dancing in the streets right now, and, in fact, this -- the way that was so widely misquoted is an example of what I described in my book, which is the constant mischaracterizations, which is a small word, picking out the word of parents.
It makes a big difference. And these subtle differences that are then glossed over as if there's absolutely no difference. To try to portray conservatives as crazy people, as Nazis, slave owners, (unintelligible), homophobic, how about dealing with our ideas? I mean I've written two books now, I've written hundreds of columns, I've been on TV hundreds of times. The idea that someone can go out and find one quote that will suddenly, you know, portray me just dismiss her ideas, read no more, read no further, this person is crazy --
Katie Couric: Well, obviously --
Ann Coulter: -- is precisely what liberals do all the time.
Katie Couric: But obviously the National Review had a problem with these articles and some of the pieces you did because you were fired from that job. Can you elaborate or at least tell us what you exactly meant?
Ann Coulter: That also isn't quite true. I mean I write a syndicated column, I write for Human Events. That's the newspaper that hires me. People buy a syndicated column, and they dropped the column. But a lot of people don't like me for a lot of different reasons, including --
Katie Couric: Why don't you explain what you meant, then.
Ann Coulter: -- that they're my competitors.
Katie Couric: What do you think is the best way to battle terrorism?
Ann Coulter: Point one and point two by the end of the week had become official government policy.
As for converting them to Christianity, I think it might be a good idea to get them on some sort of hobby other than slaughtering infidels.
I mean perhaps that's the Peace Corps, perhaps it's working for Planned Parenthood, but I've never seen the transforming effect of anything like that Christianity...
Rich wrote her another e-mail, engaging her on this point, and asking her — in more diplomatic terms — to approach the whole controversy not as a PR-hungry, free-swinging pundit on Geraldo, but as a careful writer.
No response.
Instead, she apparently proceeded to run around town bad-mouthing NR and its employees. Then she showed up on TV and, in an attempt to ingratiate herself with fellow martyr Bill Maher, said we were "censoring" her.[/quote
So the question is: Did Ann learn this tactic from one of her Close Personal Friends, or vice versa?
LOL, in his dreams and her nightmares.
...her interview with Katie Couric...You can still view part of that classic the "Coulter/Couric catfight" HERE:
Katie Couric/Ann Coulter
Wednesday, June 26, 2002
ping
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.
