Ratings. Ratings. Ratings. It's all that matters. She will be invited on these programs as long as she attracts attention and commentary from people like us.

Why pick on Ann Coulter? She is only one of a whole troupe of right-wing media clowns. Rush is the ringmaster. Hannity, O'Reilly, Beck, Savage? Clowns all. They are all in the entertainment business, posing as political pundits.

I admit that Coulter is particularly odious. But the difference between her and the others is only a matter of degree.

Perhaps the best places for Coulter to appear would be the Daily Show and the Colbert Report where she's in the company of other performers who use current events to their own purposes. It's useless to talk about her as if she were the devil incarnate. She's just a pretty good self-promoter (almost wrote pormoter, which might have been more appropriate for someone who peddles intellectual porn.) - Ted

Coulter has found a product that a gullible public will buy and probably laughs all the way to the bank.

Coulter and the MSM that keeps her afloat are minor issues, what scares me is her audience. There are people out there who buy her books and take them seriously. There are people out there who think that what she writes has at least some truth to it and those people not only can buy guns, they do buy guns. Sends a shiver up my spine.

Coulter is one of the few lawyers in the world who would improve it by becoming an ambulance chaser.

It's not everyday that Middle(God bless)America gets to see a woman playing a man playing a woman.

yeah, steve, i know:
body, cancer...
who ya gonna blame?

Clown indeed. Coulteralso quipped that "sophomoric" is considered a compliment amongst humorists, so she accepted this as a 'compliment'.

Everything he tried to critique she naturally spun to her ridiculous favor. Her critics find her work horrible because (according to her) they don't sell as many books as she. (So they're just jealous, that's all).

And she mocked Obama being in any more danger due to his skin color--comparing his danger level to that of Rush Limbaugh....

I can't believe CBS allowed the sleazy interview.
It belongs on "Extra" or the like--not on a supposed morning news show. A new low for CBS.

To be fair and overbalanced, the networks should invite a few cock roaches to appear with her.

Steve, Steve, Steve.

This is how the corporate-owned so-called "mainstream" mass media works in close collaboration with the corporate-owned openly partisan Republican right-wing extremist media to propagandize the American people in furtherance of the ruthless, rapacious class warfare of America's Ultra-Rich Ruling Class, Inc. against everyone else.

It is not the propagandistic role of the highly-paid, vapid "on-air personalities" and vapid "pundits" of the corporate-owned "mainstream" media -- like CBS employee Harry Smith -- to openly demonize Democrats and "liberals" with lies and hate speech. Their role -- other than providing infotainment filler in between commercials -- is to legitimize and amplify the lies and hate speech of other highly paid corporate propaganda operatives like Coulter and Limbaugh.

Harry Smith has Coulter on his show because that's what his ultra-rich corporate bosses pay him big bucks to do.

I don't know when "serious" media outlets died, but I don't think they've existed in my adult lifetime.

The Coulter insect has a book to sell. The shows have viewers to attract. There is no moral or intellectual calculus deeper than that. (I have the faintest glimmer of hope that they would turn down someone truly appalling, like if Robert Mugabe was hawking his memoirs, but who knows?) You and I and everyone else may know that she's a horrible person (who has some nerve criticizing Michelle Obama's fashion sense when she plunks herself in the grass of Central Park wearing a black cocktail dress for her publicity photos), but that hardly matters when booking guests.

It's a bit ironic that her book is about liberal "victimization", and as soon as she gets bumped from an NBC interview, Drudge starts acting like Coulter was victimized?

A vile hatefull woman who uses hate to sell books- thats all - no conscience.

Part of the problem is, a certain snooty idea that it is "cool" and cute and tolerant and hiply self-effacing, and I suppose post-modern etc. to have a bemused, indulgent attitude towards opinionated extremists - that it's so heavy and "pretentious" to actually despise those who deserve despising. I think that is more to the point than a literal need for MSCM (...Corporate...) to promote conservatism (not that Ann's trash is any substantial philosophy anyway) per se. The too-clever snarky and smug line by Harry Smith just makes the point: " ...she says that I am certifiably insane. Perhaps I am, for having her on the program this morning." Well, maybe you aren't really insane but you certifiably are a certain type of asshole for handling it that way.

>"I don't know when "serious" media outlets died..."

In a nutshell... when Walter Cronkite retired.

I don't blame Coulter entirely for her insane antics.

Coulter could choose to do something productive and help the nation. Instead, she chooses verbal terrorism, mindlessly attacking good people with lies. If she had anything near the values she supposedly holds dear, she wouldn't go near this shit. It's her fault, not the media's.

Ann Coulter's agenda is to (1) get you to buy her books and (2) if you won't buy her book, make you mad at her so you'll rant and rave about her. Let's all do our part to make sure she doesn't accomplish either.

dk: It's a bit ironic that her book is about liberal "victimization", and as soon as she gets bumped from an NBC interview, Drudge starts acting like Coulter was victimized?

This is the entire point of Coulter's career. No one, and I mean no one, points out the absolute moral and intellectual bankruptcy of modern conservatism the way she does. If she were any more obvious in her vapidity, venality, and hypocrisy, she'd start to clue in her gullible moronic "fans" that she's really just punking them and taking their money.

Wally: Ann Coulter's agenda is ...

No, Ann Coulter's life mission is to completely discredit conservatism. The more of us that realize this, the better.

Hey, if an emaciated attention whore with untreated hyperthyroidism is the face of Conservatism, that's fine by me.

'Verbal terrorism' fits the bill. "Hate Speech" that won't stop, that rains down on all who tune in.

If she were fat and/or ugly, she wouldn't get away with any of this. I can't imagine how she sleeps at night. I'd bet she had a very troubled childhood, replete with neglect and/or abuse.

No-one can hate and lie that well without experiencing it first hand at some point.

Very irresponsible of CBS to indulge this deplorable "human" being.

We all need to write a letter of protest now.

Coulter bears some responsibility

Speaking of bears, NBC opted to go with a piece about whether bears are dangerous. As I see it, NBC is playing into the "NBC is run by liberal extremists" meme - on purpose.

The rationale by which the media give Coulter a platform to spew her bile is the same rationale that Obama is using to allow Rick Warren to give the invocation at the inauguration. There's a point at which allowing hatred and intolerance to be an acceptable part of public discourse is simply wrong and counter-productive. The media are wrong to give Coulter airtime; and Obama is wrong to allow Rick Warren to pray at the inauguration.

Coulter is no worse than Al Franken, and that piece of pus is likely to become a US senator.

Coulter is no worse than Al Franken,

Then let's see her prove it by running for the Senate.

Coulter is no worse than Al Franken ...

Based on what, other than being delusionally out of touch with anything approaching reality?

a @12:31 needs to be more forthcoming in his/her reasoning. While I have found Franken's work as an actually paid satirist good at moments, he made a wise career change choice that has ultimately worked out for him thusfar. Though his complection is a bit ruddier than Coulters, he is not pustilant. She on the other hand is definitely a profit whore who has yet to offer us any sustainable wit, wonder or substantive analysis of our America!

In fact, I think Ann would be making her best contribution to our society by crawling back under the rock she suddenly emerged from about 15 years ago! Go home Ann, we don't need none of your stinking idiocy! -Kevo

As soon as they announced she would be a guest on the show this morning, I just changed channels.

I used to watch her and get mad. Now, I just ignore her. She's really not worth the time.

Boring hateful blonde republicans are so passe these days.

"Ann Coulter's agenda is to (1) get you to buy her books and (2) if you won't buy her book, make you mad at her so you'll rant and rave about her."

well said, Wally. And it looks like it's mission accomplished for her on the last one....

If anyone doesn't like Coulter, they can just ignore her. Same as repubs do with people like Rachel Maddow and Chris Matthews.

It's a great big diverse world out there.

I cannot wait until she comes out.... with her autobiopsy - A Loner C*nt: My Life, My Anagram.

Should make for a wonderful reading experience.

Please, Coulter should henceforth be referred to by her real birth-name: Lurch

Am I the only one that sees the hypocrisy of Steve whining about the 'media' giving her airtime while giving us her itinerary for the next week ?

I would be just fine never seeing her name in print on this site ever again. She is a circus show and this is more or less a news blog. If she actually does something newsworthy, write about it, if she goes on tour, if she gets a DUI, if her credit card gets denied, forward it to CNN. Until then quit acting like you are above it, your not and I have no doubt The Washington Monthly would fall all over itself for an interview, like everyone else.

Calling liberals/conservatives evil/stupid is fun, it doesn't mean any serious person will take you seriously. Let it go, man.

How many people do you suppose didn't know she had a new book or was on tour until they read it here or other similar blogs ? I didn't.

ScottW, there's a point there but the post is part of describing and critiquing the Media's performance, it's not about Coulter directly.

ScottW, thanks for the post. I agree with you. Irony is alive and well it seems.

The far right has invested a lot of energy in portraying the MSM as biased toward liberals. It's paying off as the MSM feels obliged to provide a platform for every wingnut who emits some screed or makes some bogus allegation.

I hope somebody (Media Matters?) will tabulate comparative numbers on MSM interviews of Coulter and, say, Jane Meyer ("The Dark Side"). I'm sure Coulter's number would be a high multiple of Meyer's.

Meyer is an investigative reporter/journalist. Coulter is a political pundit.

I guess I should have added that MSM interviews are usually done by reporter/journalists, rather than the journalists being interviewed. But someone like James Carville would be comparable to Coulter as a political pundit.

RE: GreenBlue's post:

Rick Warren and Ann Coulter are cut from the same cloth? Interesting thought. Both express bigoted thoughts and have capitalized on the same. That is true.

But Warren (unlike Coulter) has indeed done important Humanitarian works , he has recruited folks in the same, he has taken important stands on AIDS and on Global Warming--and he actively encourages the same.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Conclusion:

Obama shouldn't have invited him to do such a high profile prayer. Especially after the Prop 8 disaster. This was disrespectful and careless, but there are far worse pastors out there. That's for darn sure.

But...just as bad Ann Coulter? Hardly!
No--not the same at all--Ann Coulter has done NO good for anyone. EVER. Indeed, she seems to relish that she hasn't. She is Bush/Cheney/Rush incarnate: 'I don't care, and I don't even pretend to care".

And I still have a sense that Warren is open in some fundamental ways. He did accept the invitation after all.

I have hope for Warren.

I have none for Coulter.
She IS her
hate
waspy blonde
thin, a bit sexy looking
but truly mean spirited and
tough gal
through and through.

Without these trappings she would literally lose it. Can you imagine her crying? Apologizing? Expressing true sadness or pain or suffering for another? She is Vacant with a capital V.

Check in with Warren in ten years and with Coulter in ten years and I'll bet anyone Coulter will be a washed up nobody while Warren will likely be more mellow and accepting of that which he rebuffed.

Ann Coulter�s book is not outrageous. She is part of the neo-con, zionist machine. Her books are not controversial, they are neo-con wet dreams. Read a book that�s actually been banned like �America Deceived�, not a corporate-approved Coulter �novel�. Don�t waste your hard-earned money on Coulter.
Last link (before Google Books bends to gov�t Will and drops the title):
America Deceived (book)

No way Ann Coulter is NO Rick Warren. Ten years from now Rick Warren (and Obama) will still be against gay mariage.

After appropriately calling Coulter a clown, what else is there to say?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A1o4cNMwWpM

Harry Smith has Coulter on his show because that's what his ultra-rich corporate bosses pay him big bucks to do.

oh please. say what you want about cbs but it is hardly a refuge of the ridiculous right. if you want to know why the mainstream networks continuously provide Coulter a platform for her nonsense, all you've got to do is read this blog. like it or not she creates buzz — on the left as well as the right. and if you're a network anchor who wants to show his or her bona fides as an advocate of the first amendment and free and open discussion, who better to have on your show than the most extreme personality in american politics?

civitas: Your definition of equivalency is rather distorted, I'm afraid.

Do you truly see no critical difference between these two people?

Or does "For or against gay marriage" trump and exclude every other humanitarian issue of import?

Talk about simplistic and black/white reasoning!

Ann Coulter has done NOTHING to help others. Nor does she care to.

Amazon didn't ban that book like that website says, here it is on http://www.amazon.com/America-Deceived-E-Blayre-III/dp/0595385230. It got substandard reviews from most.

Either you believe in freedom or you don't. Nobody's pointing a gun at you making you add to her notoriety.

Either you believe in freedom or not? End of discussion? You sound like Palin or Bush now.

Is it really that simple and clear to you?
Or is that you equate freedom with people completely and wholly 100% agreeing with your version of freedom?

What if freedom also includes folks who promote and encourage Humanitarian issues?

It's not about belief--it's about your actions.
Warren has acted to help oppressed people.
He has also acted to block oppressed people.

Can you not hold that contradiction and appreciate most of us are not 100 percent for or pure something?

What a simplistic twisting of what we know to be true about human beings.

To equate a person who has done some very good works with someone who has done none is inane.

Your bias is not only showing, it's dumbing you down.

Better yet, go ahead and ask Coulter what she thinks of Warren's agreement to do the Obama invocation.

I'm sure she is just over-joyed and only has good things to say.

Folks: PLEASE - the name is Lurch, not Coulter.
"You Rang...?"

Sometimes she's funny, and that excuses everything. Cruel humor is great. Only it's not going to work as well now that Republicans are impotent marginalized losers with the bug-eyed maladjusted demeanor of LaRouchies, slumping into poverty with their shitty American home equity and stocks and their crappy little entrepreneurial enterprises going down in flames along with GOP corruption.

re: "Or is that you equate freedom with people completely and wholly 100% agreeing with your version of freedom?"
In your next riposte, try something that at least approximates Aristotelian logic ! Geez !

"Do you truly see no critical difference between these two people?"

Which 2 people? Obama and Warren? Well, both are anti-gay marriage. Did you not know that?

"Or does "For or against gay marriage" trump and exclude every other humanitarian issue of import?"

Are you not against Warren because he is against gay marriage?
In any case, my point was only that 10 years from now, all three, Obama, Coulter and Warren will still all be against gay marriage. This should not really be news to you.

Here's some final poetic justice:
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/geoffrey-dickens/2009/01/06/today-replaces-banned-bumped-ann-coulter-rachel-maddow.
Just get the point with the URL title.

No-one is saying Warren is squeaky clean.
He has a blind spot when it comes to gays.
That will likely change. (I would guess it's already changed in the last few months).

But I'll bet he's done more to inspire folks to do good works than most of us have. So where does that fact go? Down the tubes? Null and Void due to his stance on gays?

Certainly he's got more access to his heart than that pathetic clown who has done nothing to help others.

Does that mean NO-THING to you? Apparently not.

If Warren was as debase and crude as Coulter, do you think Obama would have picked him? Do you think there is no valid reason why Obama chose him? Does every choice Obama makes have to be to your liking--100%--so much so that you are now willing to liken Warren to Coulter?

Wow--talk about a stubborn mule (ass).

Whomever jumped the shark and introduced Rick Warren to this thread did us a disservice. Coulter and Warren - not relevant comparisons on this issue of profiting on bigotry! Warren's bigotry is folded into his belief system - Coulter does not have one, so her bigotry is merely for profit! -Kevo

Ann writes with wit and panache. She is the voice of reason crying out in an insane left-wing (redundant) media environment.

The problem with the conservative movement in America is we have too many "well, ok, but just not as fast" so-called conservatives such as Gingrich and not enough "the left is a threat to humanity" such as Ann.

More power to her.

BTW: I'll bet that not one of her critics here have read any of her books.

Fred t, I read enough of "Treason" to see it was hypocritical, mean, cherry-picking, and I've seen the capable rebuttals. How much of what you criticize around, have you read? What a dead-ender, still thinking they "aren't conservative enough" even after the disaster of the last eight years. And let's hear actual policy claims and analyses to make for real substance, not just the woofing.

The last 8 years? Are yu seriously claiming that the Bush admin was conservative? Because conservatives LIKE drug entitlement programs? And open borders that anyone can walk in anytime?

The tell about Today is that Coulter's booking coincided with that of Perez Hilton. That's her place on the carnie-intellectual food chain.

To: Civitas

Of course you are correct. Neither of the Bush's, nor McCain, nor Dole were conservatives. Their politics ranged from moderate to slightly left of center. The "disaster" is a result of being too accomodating to Political Correctness, Neo-conservative ideology and wishing to be bi-partisan.

Ann Coulter attacks Michelle Obama because of jealously. Michell Obama is a REAL woman with class, grace, intelligence, poise.

Plus Michelle has that nice BHO body lying next to her in bed.

Purr.., Purr.., Purr.., Purr.., Purr.., Purr.., Purr.., Purr.., Purr.., Purr.., Purr.., Purr.., Purr.., Purr...

And Ann Coulter has that ........ what?

Envy.

I have to give Smith some credit. He seemed to consider the interview a chore and her a big joke, but not in a good way.

People in wingnut world do take her seriously. They believe that she tells it like it is.

I have tried to read her books. They are horribly written, almost incoherent, poorly researched and sometimes just patently ridiculous. Hyperbole, heavy handed sarcasm and nasty ad hominem attacks pass for humor. She's a narcissist to the core and not even a charming one. She's a shameless self promoter, who attributes any criticism to professional jealousy or the wrongheadedness of liberalism. Every interview contains one diatribe after another. She's rude, interrupts and shouts down those who do not agree with her.

In this interview with Smith, she called Joe McCarthy and Tom Delay, among others, "victims." Smith was incredulous. "Tom Delay?" he repeated with astonishment. The look on his face was priceless, reflecting his contempt.

She is in a word, indefensible. Please. Don't even bother with the false equivalencies. Al Franken doesn't even come close in bile and even if he did, that doesn't absolve her of her nastiness and divisiveness. Come on people, wake up. She thinks Joe McCarthy was a victim! That pretty much sums up all you need to know about the woman's world view.

All that being said and despite the fact that I watched the Smith interview, my strategy, at this point is to ignore, ignore, ignore.