ANN COULTER ON THE BILL O'RILEY SHOW TONIGHT (Tues July 22, 2003

FOX NEWS | July 22, 2003 | self

[Imagine]

Please Post Pictures

[sinkspur]

She ate him alive.

Actually, he got her on the Bill Maher thing.

Ann likes Bill Maher, so she never lambastes him, yet he's every bit as reprehensible as Al Franken.

His premise for the piece was that she's red meat for the right, and he's right about that.

Ann Coulter's bombast doesn't influence anyone that's not already in agreement with her.

[LibWhacker]

And to think this guy writes books.

[LibWhacker]

He's a personal friend!

[evad]

Dalton Trumbo, BWAhahaha! He didn't even know McCarthy had nothing to do with HUAC.

Yes..it was classic.

Definitely worth a rewatch.

Never mess with a conservative gal thats got the truth on her side...and knows her stuff.

[sinkspur]

He's a personal friend!

Precisely. She won't criticize him because he's a buddy, yet he's as ideological as any of the other leftists she criticizes.

[evad]

Ann Coulter's bombast doesn't influence anyone that's not already in agreement with her

Fair enough..but the same thing can certainly be said of Bill.

My comment was based on the overall conversation. Bill skirted and dodged and tried to laugh things off. Well worth seeing again. Ann comes off well and doesn't give an inch.

[mathluv]

She said he was a liberal, but he was not included in the topic of her book.

[sinkspur]

She said he was a liberal, but he was not included in the topic of her book

Of course not!

[LibWhacker]

Yeah, but you're not going to ruin a friendship . . . Who else on the left (who isn't a friend) won't she publicly criticize? That's the real test.

[sinkspur]

Fair enough..but the same thing can certainly be said of Bill.

O'Reilly's demographic is much broader than Coulter's. His books outsell hers, by far, and he appeals across ideological lines.

Coulter is such a talented woman. It's a shame she's so angry all the time. No wonder she's not married.

[agitator]

RadioFR's Ann Coulter interview is replaying right now:

http://www.theotherradionetwork.com/srv1.asx

[sinkspur]

Who else on the left (who isn't a friend) won't she publicly criticize? That's the real test.

No, the test is who won't she criticize on the left, friend or not.

[demkicker]

O'Reilly is a pompous jerk who is probably off screen trying to peel the egg off his overated mug.

What kills me is that no one, according to Lord O'Reilly, can be critical of another human being except, of course, O'Reilly. He wouldn't address the fact that Ann's book is full of facts which contradict long standing liberal lies. He'd rather call Ann the equivalent of a wife beater than address the message she delivers.

Having Ann on as a guest did accomplish one thing. The point/counter point of O'Reilly's shabby interview let everyone see how ill informed he, Mr. Revisionist History teacher, really is. He should be ashamed.

[Cboldt]

No contest. First time I've watched O'Reilly in months -- I can only take so much.

She admits to "being red meat" for her point of view, "... I am trying to change people's minds ..." she said, and doesn't mind "hitting them in the nose."

His point, that she is only on par with her opponents -- no way, O'Reilly is wrong. Coulter uses fact, had serious points, and has a -real- sense of humor.

Note too, Coulter is responsive to questions and context. In order to be so, she is a good listener.

As for whether her bombast is effective, we'll have to wait and see. I think it is. It enrages the opposition to idiocy, and sets a high standard for "believers" to listen, speak clearly, and rely on facts.

[hambran]

Again, those who use the misquoted House Committee On Un-American Activities is still using the rubric "HUAC" which stands incorrectly for "House Un-American Activities" emplying that the committee is unamerican and those on the committee are unamericans.
Further Senator McCarthy had nothing to do with the house committee. Senator McCarthy was with the Senate Internal Security Subcommittee.

[demkicker]

Coulter is such a talented woman. It's a shame she's so angry all the time. No wonder she's not married.

Yawn... Can't you come up with a legitmate criticism of Ann? The woman isn't "angry" all the time. She should get angry however, when people like you misrepresent her. And BTW, your marriage comment is a pathetic cheap shot.

Ann is smart, has spunk and is very open to questioning. Fortunately, she's used to the piling on and likes the challenges of putting her opinions and research out for public consumption.

[onyx]

I don't know about "ashamed" but I KNOW he has to be embarrassed by his pee-poor performance.

O'Reilly erred (big time) by approaching her book as a 'liberal-bashing-hit-piece' when in fact, it's a carefully researched and documented historical account of the smearing of a true American hero by the revisonist-leftists-traitors in this country of ours, many of whom are still alive and polluting the minds of everyone within their reach!

[sinkspur]

As for whether her bombast is effective, we'll have to wait and see. I think it is.

To right-wingers. She's failing to reach half the American political spectrum, all because she gets personal in her attacks.

But that's what sells to her audience: hair-on-fire vitriol.

[sinkspur]

The woman isn't "angry" all the time.

Every time I see her, she is.

She's a master cheap-shot artist, with her ad hominems.

[demkicker]

She's failing to reach half the American political spectrum, all because she gets personal in her attacks."

I say you are wrong in your conclusion. If Ann is "failing" to reach half the American political spectrum, it is because she is snubbed by most in the elite media. Many media outlets are afraid to do a serious and honest interview with her. She is constantly attacked and interrupted, then condemned for defending herself! But keep on being critical. Fortunately, your opinion is falling on many deaf ears on this forum.

Why don't you to cite your references for this claim you make?