Posted on 06/28/2006 5:10:56 AM PDT by libstripper
June was a very good month for Ann Coulter. Was it a good one for her millions of enemies and the future of the world? Hard to say.
On June 6, the day her fifth book, Godless: The Church of Liberalism, arrived in bookstores, Ms. Coulter appeared on NBC’s The Today Show. The conversation with Matt Lauer began as a civil debate, but a barely concealed gleam in Mr. Lauer’s eyes suggested the host had a poison arrow waiting in his quiver.
And then it flew: His last question concerned a section in her book about the four 9/11 widows who dubbed themselves the “Jersey Girls,” and who became national figures for demanding an investigation into how the Bush administration might have prevented 9/11 and who later campaigned for John Kerry. In her book, Ms. Coulter calls them the “witches of East Brunswick,” describing them as Democratic Party pawns sent out onto the political stage because of their victim status, as “messengers whom we’re not allowed to reply to,” let alone criticize.
Mr. Lauer read Ms. Coulter’s words: “These broads are millionaires, lionized on TV and in articles about them, reveling in their status as celebrities and stalked by grief-arazzis. I have never seen people enjoying their husband’s death so much.”
(Excerpt) Read more at observer.com ...
Ann's constant diet of chewing-up and spitting out liberals just isn't getting her the calories she needs. Have a biscuit and some gravy Ann!
bttt
sigh
LOL......Annie sure does have the ability to enrage the left like no one else.
Drag queens and Nazis (fascists) seem like Andy's thing, if you know what I mean. Blech!
You might be right there!
As far as the libs are concerned, I think it's because a lot of them have just read the "Jersey Girls" quotes and have become hysterical in print without reading anything else. Indeed, if they'd read the rest of the book they might have realized it was a very good idea not to talk and write about it and, instead, to give it a deep freeze treatment like the one they gave the Swiftvets. Instead they got their gonads pumping to the point that even the Witch and all her flying moneys came out and denounced the book, giving Ann the best free advertising imaginable and assuring that thousands would read the really important stuff in the book that doesn't involve the "Jersey Girls."
Of course the leftists and MSM will use that one line to discredit the rest of what she says. Doesn't make her wrong however.
I have never read a major pundits book, but I might just pick this one up.
Takes a Queen to know one I guess.....
Ann, you da Boss. But don't be afraid to refer to your pets by their more specific term - the one that references female canines.
Is he short? Tall girls might look like drag queens to him.
She got a way with words.
O'Reilly would be more accurately characterized as "Muddle of the Road" or even "All Over The Road, In The Ditches, Across The Median & Spinning Out Of Control". /grin
He has no discernable, coherent set of standards or principles from which his positions on various issues are derived, although he does show a fairly consistent predilection that, no matter what the problem may be, more government power is the answer. His opinions are always based on what he "believes" or "feels". This is fine for an entertainer, of course, but it renders him unfit as any sort of authority or arbiter on anything. When you mix in his arrogance and the abysmally poor and superficial factual research and investigaton he and his staff seem to put into all but a few issues, the decision to change the channel comes easily.
Ann can park her shoes under my bed any day.
I really resent using references to female canines in discussing libs--it slanders the dogs. After all, the Witch is the Witch, and individual with an inappropriate relationship with the Devil, not a poor, innocent, loving female dog.
I could not have said it better myself. I think he pretty much tries to go with however he thinks the popular majority leans on most issues -- with a few contrarian positions (on carefully selected minor issues) thrown in to give him the opportunity to boast about how independent he is.
His agenda is not to promote conservatism, liberalism, or any ideology. It is purely to promote Bill O'Reilly.
His boorish arrogance really came through a couple of nights ago when he was interviewing Fox News' highly competent legal reporter, Megan Kendal (Sp.?). He'd asked her how she thought the upcoming Hamdi SCOTUS was likely to come out and she launched into a well-informed, erudite response. He kept trying to cut her off with his own bloviating before she could finish answering his question. Megan did a great job--she plunged on and finished her answer in spite of the bloviating. Worst of all, O'Reilly was just trying boorishly to insert himself and didn't really agree or disagree with what she was saying.
There's no discussion by the mainstream media concerning the rest of the contents of the book because the MSM wants people to think that Ann's entire book is merely a caustic, pointless insult to the left. And of course, we know which side of the aisle most of the media resides.
Fortunately, the MSM's mode of operation is no longer functional, given that there are other, more accurate means of obtaining information available. They are no longer able to control the news.
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.