NBC CUTS COULTER; KEEPS PEREZ
Mon Jan 05 2009 17:50:57 ET

**Exclusive Details**

The nation's top selling conservative author has been banned from appearing on NBC, insiders tell the DRUDGE REPORT.

"We are just not going to have her on any more, it's over," a top network source explains.

But a second top suit strongly denies there is any "Coulter ban".

"Look for a re-invite, as soon as Wednesday," said the news executive, who asked not to be named.

NBC's TODAY show abruptly cut Ann Coulter from its planned Tuesday broadcast, claiming the schedule was overbooked.

Executives at NBC TODAY replaced Coulter with showbiz reporter Perez Hilton, who recently offered $1,000 to anyone who would throw a pie at Ann Coulter. Hilton is also launching a new book this week, RED CARPET SUICIDE.

Coulter was set to unveil her new book, GUILTY.

One network insider claims it was the book's theme -- a brutal examination of liberal bias in the new era -- that got executives to dis-invite the controversialist.

"We are just not interested in anyone so highly critical of President-elect Obama, right now," a TODAY insider reveals. "It's such a downer. It's just not the time, and it's not what our audience wants, either."

Others inside the peacock network strongly deny the book's theme is at issue.

For the book, Coulter reportedly received the most-lucrative advance ever paid to a conservative author.

The TODAY show eagerly invited the author months ago, for her first network interview on GUILTY.

The exclusive was to air during the show's 7 AM hour. The cut came Monday afternoon.

Coulter was also to appear on the TODAY's fourth hour. A host even teased the segment saying the 'conservative pit bull and bestselling author' would be a guest.

NBC's cable outlet, MSNBC, will also become a Coulter-free zone, insiders explain. Morning host Joe Scarborough is said to be concerned with the new ban. "He's working to overrule it," tips a source.

Developing...

OMG - they unwired her jaw!!!!! ;)

OMG - they unwired her jaw!!!!! ;)

I don't know exactly why (or even if) her jaw was wired shut, but on the topic of left wing hate- did you see the buzz, excitement, and glee in left wing circles when that rumor was circulating. "I'd like to thank who ever broke her jaw." was a typical, unfunny,comment made. Assaults and intense pain is so funny when it happens to someone you don't agree with.

No hate like liberal hate.

No hate like liberal hate.No, there's no hate like Coulter's hate.

No, there's no hate like Coulter's hate.
You're right. Because she's not "hateful."
And please, don't just respond with a list of contextless quotes that were made humorously. We've all seen the same cut and paste lists with the little dates next to them, and I'm sure a few of us have actually made the mistake of bothering to go line by line and provide the appropriate context demonstrating the "hate" claim to be absurd. Not going to do it again, you won't bother to read it, and anyone inclined to repeat that idiotic hateful charge is going to keep doing it regardless, out of intellectual dishonesty or laziness.

Let's try to get back on topic.
It certainly looks like NBC has made an editorial decision, based on ideology here, not not one based on ratings. Coulter is a very popular, best selling author who generates interest and increased viewership of the shows she appears on. The decision to cancel her for both the 1st and 4th hours of that show wasn't a ratings based, or money based, decision. It was either overtly political OR as the insider expressed, it was influenced by their politics, not wanting to risk her being down on Obama. And the policy of not having her on MSNBC, a network desperate for viewers, just drives the point home.

This isn't a profound discovery. This isn't earth shaken evidence. But it should further demonstrate two things - 1 the liberal bias in the press and the difficulty it is for even successful conservative authors to get a voice in the MSM. Had she written a book critical of President Bush they wouldn't have canceled. 2- just how protective of Obama the media and NBC are.

First, enough of the OJ photo. Holidays are over.:) (Can't stand looking at him)

Of course the Left is gleeful over Coulter getting censored. They'll try to pick off the right wing conservatives one-by-one.

You can turn the table.

Send NBC and MSNBC a letter saying you are boycotting their sponsors and any products GE (owner of both networks) makes.

Nothing talks like money.

Let's face it. The Left can't handle Coulter. So is waaay too smart for them.

She fell down at the end of November - and broke her jaw.

She rarely says those hateful things in jest - more often than not she says them to create buzz about herself. She is a self promoting machine, and ascertained long ago it would be easier to get the right to rally around her, so she consciously declared herself 'conservative'. I personally believe she held no strong beliefs either way - she went down the path where she could find the most gullible, dupable support.

The right gleefully sets her up as the sexpot pundit of their side, pointing proudly to all the garbage that she spews. Great - you can have her.

I certainly don't fear her. By constantly stating such sewage, that is crafted to sensationalize and place her in the limelight, she pretty much undermines everything that she states.

As I stated not to long ago - the right doesn't know how much damage Ms Coulter does to their cause. Centrist America sees her hate, not in jest, but as viewpoints that are representative of the right. She makes 'your' side Cal far more unapproachable and loathsome.

I think that NBC did the American people (and well, mostly the left) a disfavor by not allowing her on the show. Let America watch her - she is a train wreck waiting to happen.

She fell down at the end of November - and broke her jaw.
That's what was reported. I haven't seen her actually confirm or deny it and I think Page Six was the original source of the story... probably true, but I've only seen it reported in a gossip column.

She rarely says those hateful things in jest -
She doesn't say anything that is hateful.
And even the more course things she says are said with a dry sarcasm and wit with the purpose of entertaining while making a point. Sometimes, more successfully than others.

more often than not she says them to create buzz about herself. She is a self promoting machine, and ascertained long ago it would be easier to get the right to rally around her, so she consciously declared herself 'conservative'.
She does use the rage on the left directed at her as a promotional tool, and she's wise to do so. That uncontrolled hate might as well be used for something productive. And I'm sure that NBCs decision to blacklist her, and the subsequent reporting of it in conservative circles, will actually increase awareness of her new book and likely sell more copies in the first week.


I personally believe she held no strong beliefs either way - she went down the path where she could find the most gullible, dupable support.
Well, everything available clearly demonstrates that your "belief" is completely wrong- on every level.
There's a documentary about here called "Is It True What They Say About Ann?" that does address her background.

But you've never been one to let facts get in the way of your thoughts and beliefs.

If she were looking for dupable support, she is clearly talented enough to take a job writing the brainless editorial bile that passes for insight at the New York Times. She could be the darling of the left. The luxury of being popular with the left is abundant media coverage AND screw ball leftists don't assault you at speaking engagements.


The right gleefully sets her up as the sexpot pundit of their side, pointing proudly to all the garbage that she spews. Great - you can have her.
Actually, the belt-way sell out D.C. types HATE her. She's too direct, confident, and assertive. Republicans in D.C. have no stones.
It's the real conservatives in this country that love her.

Calling her work garbage is nonsense and a convenient way of dismissing the substance of her work. While it is often abrasive, it isn't garbage and shouldn't be dismissed. The arguments are solid and supported (don't go posting a link for mediamatters with more falsely attributed "errors").
I'm glad to have her on my side. I enjoy her work and I've seen her speak- despite the disruptive leftist who tried to disrupt the event, harassing people entering the building, trying to drown out her voice while speaking, and then standing up in unison to block the view of the stage then walking out while yelling profanities.


I certainly don't fear her. By constantly stating such sewage, that is crafted to sensationalize and place her in the limelight, she pretty much undermines everything that she states.
Her ability to persuade is undermined by her tone.
But that doesn't undermine the value of her arguments.
Her goal clearly isn't to persuade liberals to her cause, but to better inform conservatives.

As I stated not to long ago - the right doesn't know how much damage Ms Coulter does to their cause. Centrist America sees her hate, not in jest, but as viewpoints that are representative of the right. She makes 'your' side Cal far more unapproachable and loathsome.
NO. Centrist America may see her through the lens of the media.
Centrist may see the lists of contextless quotes that are repeated by puppets.
But when they actually read her columns, or see her in person, or framed in a fair way- she's is very effective.

Liberals make her "unapproachable and loathsome" because that's the best way to undermine and dismiss a conservative.
She's "loathsome." Another one is "racist." Another one is "hateful." And they do this because most "centrists" (code word for uninformed and uninvolved) still rely on the mainstream press for their news and analysis.

In this case, they can't have Coulter on because, as you remove the filters of the MSM, she might connect with the NBC viewers.


I think that NBC did the American people (and well, mostly the left) a disfavor by not allowing her on the show. Let America watch her - she is a train wreck waiting to happen.
Well, they didn't.
And it wasn't in an effort to protect her from herself.

So, now that we know how you feel about her, you've managed to avoid talking about the OBVIOUS agenda at NBC demonstrated here.

she went down the path where she could find the most gullible, dupable support..Gosh darn, ya got me.

I certainly don't fear her.Would "Jealous" be a better way of describing your feelings towards her? Personally, I think you are secretly attracted to her. Lez be friends as the saying goes.;)

So, now that we know how you feel about her, you've managed to avoid talking about the OBVIOUS agenda at NBC demonstrated here.

Calabrio, that was a pretty serious beat down on Foxy. Take it easy on her. She's gonna be all bruised up. :)

I mean, that was really well argued.

I think you are secretly attracted to her. Lez be friends as the saying goes.;)

Is anyone really attracted to her? She would be a boney ride at best;)

No, there's no hate like Coulter's hate.

Smear?! I thought you were better then that.

Well, NBC used to be an good outlet for Ann - she has been on NBC numerous times...

We will see if she is blacklisted, I doubt it - but, time will tell.

I am usually content to sit back and wait - jumping in usually make everyone look a little foolish.

However she will be loving it if she is...

Well, NBC used to be an good outlet for Ann - she has been on NBC numerous times...

We will see if she is blacklisted, I doubt it - but, time will tell.

I am usually content to sit back and wait - jumping in usually make everyone look a little foolish.

However she will be loving it if she is...

You responded but didn't say anything.

This isn't a "wait and see" issue- the action has been made. NBC made a decision, in private to cut her from the network for partisan reasons.

The fact that it was reported in such a high profile way on the DrudgeReport will influence any pending decision made. Without the outside influence, the decision was made and it demonstrates the point...

The point you refuse to acknowledge, the point that you can not refute is that the media IS NOT purely profit driven. They are motivated and make decisions based upon their partisan ideology.

And who did NBC chose to fill in for the last minute cancellation of Ann Coulter?
If profit was the motive, then it must have been a prominent celebrity or a someone who is much beloved by all Americans....

No.
Rachael Maddow.
Lesbian, radical, leftist, "Air America" radio show air personality, and MSNBC host.

To attack the Bush administration, talk about the U.S.' evil policy of torture, and to be among the handful of morons out there who are PRAISING Obama for chosing Leon Panetta to head the CIA.

I thought Perez Hilton was scheduled to take her place - I don't know - I don't watch the Today show. Did you watch it Cal?

If NBC thought that Ann Coulter would drive away viewers with her negativism, they could be basing this on profit. I know that currently all of the networks are trying to stay away from 'doom and gloom' on their commentary segments (or fluff segments, which the Coulter book segment would fall into) because they feel that the daily reporting of the news has enough of that already. The prevailing feeling at the top is 'lets not make it any worse then it already is - the public can only stand so much of this."

I doubt if she has been blacklisted - probably just backburnered.

to be among the handful of morons out there who are PRAISING Obama for chosing Leon Panetta to head the CIA.

I believe Obama has named January 5th, Hug A Terrorist Day.

Another Clinton retread...

Change we can believe in.

Man, do the Clintons have the goods on Obama.

I thought Perez Hilton was scheduled to take her place - I don't know - I don't watch the Today show. Did you watch it Cal?
Not according to what I've since read. I think I've read that Perez Hilton was on during the 4th hour segment. The 1st hour segment was filled by Maddow.

But, are you saying that the fat, little, homosexual, male gossip queen appeals to Middle America more than? The one that was offering $1,000 to anyone that would commit battery on Ann Coulter is a more popular guest anywhere outside New York City?

Or having Maddow on to bash Bush, talk about how evil our country was, and lick Obama's boots appealed to more viewers?

If NBC thought that Ann Coulter would drive away viewers with her negativism, they could be basing this on profit.
Then why'd they book her for two segments in the first place.

Dance little Foxpaws, dance.... avoid the issue, make excuses, and spin....


I doubt if she has been blacklisted - probably just backburnered.
She's a best selling author with a new release, and everytime she's on there she increases the shows rating and gets people talking about that boring show. You and I both know that this was an editorial decision to cancel her at the last minute. The only question is whether it was done to spite her (committing her entire morning to the broadcast and then cancelling) or just done on liberal principle.

And it certainly sounds likely that a decision was made at Obama campaign headquarters (MSNBC) to keep her off the air.

But you can keep dancing.... Bryan seems to like watching you spin around.

The idea of attempting to sideline Coulter during the push on her new book is a perfect example of what happens when fear and hate overwhelm good sense. She's a proven 'draw'. It's no wonder that the NBC graph of business has been on a downward run. But the secular progressive approach doesn't seem to care. Air America is a perfect example.
KS

NBC can do what it wants. It is a private entity and answers to its owners and shareholders, not to you Cal, bloggers, or right wing pundits. And especially not to Ann Coulter.

In the past NBC often got criticized for having Coulter on. And they had her on more than the other networks. If it doesn't want to deal with the criticism it can make that choice.

She isn't news. And maybe NBC just had enough of Ann's same old cliques dug up and reworked to make it look like she is current and relevant.

It is their decision to go with or without her. If they want to promote a liberal agenda on their 'fluff' pieces (which is what the book segments are considered) they can go liberal. They can promote books about homosexual dogs - it is their decision. If they believe that Coulter isn't what the people wanted to hear, than they will cancel her. If Steve Capus doesn't want to listen to her, then he will cancel her. If Obermann threatened to walk off, and the network wants to keep him, they will cancel her. If they have heard her recent tirades, and think that America has had enough of her insults, and will tune out, (which is what I think happened) then NBC will cancel her.

And I believe Bryan is known for his excellent taste in dancers ;)

NBC can do what it wants. It is a private entity and answers to its owners and shareholders, not to you Cal, bloggers, or right wing pundits. And especially not to Ann Coulter.
I'm sorry, are you confused. Because no one here has challenged the right of NBC to chose it's guests.

However, we're discussing the motivation behind their last minute decision to cancel her and ban her on their networks.

Care to actually comment on that?

In the past NBC often got criticized for having Coulter on....If it doesn't want to deal with the criticism it can make that choice.... She isn't news. And maybe NBC just had enough of Ann's same old cliques dug up and reworked to make it look like she is current and relevant. ...It is their decision to go with or without her.
Yet, they still decided to book for for TWO SEGMENTS yesterday. They didn't cancel her until the last minute. Curious isn't it? If they felt like this, why would they book her? Do you think a bunch of liberal elites were standing around with their morning lattes and then said, "OH CRAP!! I didn't realize we double booked THAT Ann Coulter!!"

But on topic- this thread isn't about whether they have the right to select their own guests, I'm discussing their motivation.

It's not profit. It's not ratings. It's ideological.

If they want to promote a liberal agenda on their 'fluff' pieces (which is what the book segments are considered) they can go liberal.

So you agree that they are promoting a liberal agenda, and that agenda is put before revenue and ratings.

This is not about NBC and what NBC wants. This is about protecting Obama at all costs. The media has alot invested in the Messiah and can't afford to have cracks out into the side of the SS Obamessiah.

I think that NBC is taking the pulse of America, and believes that America doesn’t want to listen to Ann Coulter right now. They don’t want to promote the bashing of Obama (which is certainly a probability of what she would talk about) at a time when Obama is riding on a pretty big crest of public approval. They may believe after the last election that to gain viewership a more liberal agenda is in order. They read numbers. I don’t know how liberal guests vs conservative guests are polling right now.

Why they cut her with such short notice, I don’t know. I don’t think there was a big call in/write in campaign against her (and hot air (http://hotair.com/archives/2009/01/05/coulter-banned-for-life-from-nbc-or-something/) doesn’t think so either).

NBC certainly had to know that it would make an enemy of Coulter and her dogged following. Maybe they just don’t care. I think they have found that the audience they are trying to reach is tired of right wing bickering partisan politics. And Coulter represents one of the pinnacles of partisan politics.

Maybe time, and the ‘centrist’ American are leaving Coulter behind.

Her book will sell. To the devoted and converted. But, will middle of the road America pick it up to see what the right is about? You are ‘damned if they do, damned if they don’t’ territory here Cal. Do you really want middle America reading “We have a term for youngsters involved in children of divorces, or as I call them, future strippers”? Or that single moms are undermining the American way of life?

Probably not.

Well, Media Matters was apparently waging a write-in campaign here (http://mediamatters.org/action_center/coulter_nbc/call/take_action?src=coulternbc02). No idea if it's the reason. Nor do I care.

Well, sorry, I (and apparently Hot Air) stand corrected.
I wonder how many responses they got?

If enough people did write in, then, you are right Calabrio - certainly in that case, NBC listened to the people who maybe complained the loudest.

Shoot, I'll have to write Media Matters now - they need to realize that the best way to show the right's true colors is let Ann Coulter talk her little heart out.

I just read something that might have merit - and Bryan will love this, sort of conspiracy theory 'Ann' style...
I still haven't written off the possibility that she is actually a left-wing mole whose job it is to make conservatives look bad.

I just read her interview with Hannity/Colmes (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,476745,00.html) last night - she has to be working for the left - no one would put this stuff on the air and hope that it presents the right as a rational, sane form of political thought.

– I can’t tell you how funny it is – I have to watch the actual show this evening. The parts where she is questioned about this statement in her book “We have a term for youngsters involved in children of divorces, or as I call them, future strippers,” the ‘fact’ that liberals hate marriage is priceless, along with this quote…”No, I am insulting single motherhood, which is avidly promoted by the left,”

The left really couldn't make up stuff this good. ;)

I think that NBC is taking the pulse of America, and believes that America doesn’t want to listen to Ann Coulter right now.
So when did they make that decision?
Before or after they booked her to appear on two segments on the Today show?

They don’t want to promote the bashing of Obama (which is certainly a probability of what she would talk about) at a time when Obama is riding on a pretty big crest of public approval.
Very interesting... see what you're doing is making excuses.
What you're not doing is responding to the challenge posed.

Here's what we know, a very successful author and popular speaker was scheduled to appear on a morning show. This woman is such a good guest they they scheduled her for TWO segments, once in the first hour and then AGAIN that same day during the fourth hour of the show.

So, when those decisions were being made, all of your brainstorming, grasping at straws speculation and excuse making was irrelevant.

So the question is-
did they cancel her appearance in an attempt to spite her,
or was it just done for last minute partisan ideological reasons?

They may believe after the last election that to gain viewership a more liberal agenda is in order. They read numbers. I don’t know how liberal guests vs conservative guests are polling right now.
I know you're just making excuses and spinning.... but this doesn't make sense either. If election results were an indication of the "agenda" this so called non-biased NeWS source were to reflect, then why have they been so consistently far left. Why were they so passionately anti-conservative even after the Republicans took control of the Congress in 1995, or when Bush won re-election with similar numbers as Obama in 2004..... Of course the answer is clear- that was a ridiculous excuse you just came up with.

The fact is, NBC/MSNBC would have a hard time skewing any farther to the left if they wanted to. This is the network where Chris Mathews gets a "tingle up his leg" when he hears Obama speak....

So did they cancel Coulter's appearance at the last minute because of partisan idealogy, or did they do it also to spite her and prevent the ability to promoting her book on the morning of it's release?

And if she is unofficially banned on MSNBC, how do you explain that. Coulter rarely turns down invitations to those shows and conflict means ratings and attention in the world of cable news... so what's the argument there.

I'll let you answer that:
They don’t want to promote the bashing of Obama
Well, you're right about that...

NBC certainly had to know that it would make an enemy of Coulter and her dogged following.
I'm sure they felt it was for the greater good.
Or they didn't want to leave 30 Rock and have all of their NY elite liberal friends yelling at them for having that "horrible woman" on the show.
Maybe they just don’t care. I think they have found that the audience they are trying to reach is tired of right wing bickering partisan politics. And Coulter represents one of the pinnacles of partisan politics.
Right- so in her place they put on the bitter, radical lesbian host from Air America..... Another poorly conceived excuse, Fox... you'll have to try harder. We all expect much better spin from you.

You are ‘damned if they do, damned if they don’t’ territory here Cal. Do you really want middle America reading ? Or that single moms are undermining the American way of life?
Probably not.
That's a funny quote...
I'd be thrilled if I saw my nephew reading a book written by Ann Coulter.
He's a bit young right for it to hold his interest now, but I can assure you, he'll have a copy of Treason before he's in High School... and I'll buy him the rest as he finishes them.


Her book will sell. To the devoted and converted. But, will middle of the road America pick it up to see what the right is about?
Certainly not if they don't know it's out.
Certainly not if they don't here HER explain what it's about, rather than having it explained to them by some hateful liberal on the TV.

But that's the plan, isn't it?

Why were they so passionately anti-conservative even after the Republicans took control of the Congress in 1995, or when Bush won re-election with similar numbers as Obama in 2004..... Of course the answer is clear- that was a ridiculous excuse you just came up with.

I don’t know Cal – other than the numbers that they want to hit (probably 18-35) show them what that group wants on TV.

As you said, one of their shows, 30 Rock, is aimed there. They may also want aim their other programming there as well, which includes books featured on the Today show.

Ann Coulter doesn’t appeal to the SNL, 30 Rock crowd.

And they could have listened to the write in poll that Marcus found. Maybe they think that is their audience as well.

If they are out there to just push some agenda that doesn’t have an audience, then they won’t be around for much longer. You should be rejoicing their choice to ban Ann if that is the case. If their audience wants to watch Ann then they will drift away, to Fox to find Ann and others like her.

If they believe that Ann is antithesis to their audience, then they were right in taking her off the air. If they think that Rachael Maddow is who their audience wants to see, then, maybe they know their audience better than we do.

Maybe they are interested in picking up other market segments in that time frame. The lesbian stay-at-home mom, who would have been pretty insulted by Ann’s newest tirades.

I'd be thrilled if I saw my nephew reading a book written by Ann Coulter.
He's a bit young right for it to hold his interest now, but I can assure you, he'll have a copy of Treason before he's in High School... and I'll buy him the rest as he finishes them.

It is best to indoctrinate the young… Although, he’ll rebel (pretty standard stuff for teens) and whatever you like, he’ll hate.

You might be better off giving him Al Franken's “Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them”, and by using reverse psychology he’ll be drawn toward Coulter on his own… ;)

I don’t know Cal – other than the numbers that they want to hit (probably 18-35) show them what that group wants on TV.
I'm sorry...don't mean to interrupt, but you haven't responded to the actual challenge yet, instead you just posted up a big heap of bullcrap....

They booked her, for not 1 segment, but 2. That's a marketing decision.
They changed their mind at the last minute. That's an emotional decision.

The decision to cancel both appearances at the last minute was because they wanted to silence her because they didn't like her message, or because they wanted to spite her on the day of her book release, tying her up with the double booking on NBC (1st and 4th hours), making her unavailable to appear elsewhere to promote it.

Also.. I'm the cool Uncle.
Teenagers don't rebel against the cool uncle, they emulate them.

I'm sorry...don't mean to interrupt, but you haven't responded to the actual challenge yet, instead you just posted up a big heap of bullcrap....

They booked her, for not 1 segment, but 2. That's a marketing decision.
They changed their mind at the last minute. That's an emotional decision.

The decision to cancel both appearances at the last minute was because they wanted to silence her because they didn't like her message, or because they wanted to spite her on the day of her book release, tying her up with the double booking on NBC (1st and 4th hours), making her unavailable to appear elsewhere to promote it.

Well, she wandered over to CBS this morning... she was still on network TV - maybe in spite of NBC's canceling, CBS decided to book her.

I don't work for the networks Cal, I can't tell you why they did it. I can speculate - just as you are speculating (you don't have any hard evidence either).

It could have been a last minute decision based on emotion. As I said, maybe Steve Capus doesn't want to listen to her anymore. I would imagine it was based on other agenda though. However, just as you have no proof that is was based on 'emotion' I have no proof that it was based on 'appealing to their audience'.

We may never know. But, that is why often I sort of like to sit back and find out what is happening - knee jerks only work when trying to get some slimy guy away from you.

Also.. I'm the cool Uncle.
Teenagers don't rebel against the cool uncle, they emulate them.

Well, we only have your word on this, being the 'cool' uncle, don't we? :)

Well, she wandered over to CBS this morning... she was still on network TV - maybe in spite of NBC's canceling, CBS decided to book her.
She was already booked on CBS... and that has absolutely nothing to do with the discussion we're having about NBCs decision.

They booked her in advance.
She is a best selling author, a lively and spirited guest, and she generates interest in the shows she's on. NBC knew this. They booked her for TWO segments, in the first and fourth hours. This is a significant time commitment and it enables Coulter to interact in two different settings.

Then on the day of her appearance, launching her book critical of the media and Obama, they cancel her. As mentioned, the marketing decision was made in advance when they scheduled two segments.

None of the "marketing" nonsense you're trying to cobble together makes any sense.

Either they pulled the plug at the last minute because of an emotional, partisan, response to deny her an audience.
OR- it was planned in advance to just undermine her book launch.

She was booked to do 2 morning shows at the same time?

Was she going to be running between them? Those Manolo Blahniks wouldn't have held up... ;)

I have no idea of why NBC did what they did. I am speculating - you are speculating. Maybe they were mad that she booked CBS on the same day, on a competing morning show.

Or, maybe this is a great way to appeal to their audience - wow, I really admire NBC for pulling that ingrate witch.

Heck, if as you said, it is to 'undermine her book launch' it may have backfired - this is getting lots of press - probably more than her talking on the Today show would have done. Ann will certainly play it up for all it's worth (she already is). She is as good at playing the victim as anyone is.

I would imagine we will never know. Your theories will remain theories, as will mine.

Fox has offered half a dozen possible reasons - errrrrrrrrrr - excuses, but NBC has already answered this.

NBC CUTS COULTER; KEEPS PEREZ


"We are just not interested in anyone so highly critical of President-elect Obama, right now," a TODAY insider reveals. "It's such a downer. It's just not the time, and it's not what our audience wants, either."

By the way, nice job Cal. You've eviscerated fox at every turn.

"We are just not interested in anyone so highly critical of President-elect Obama, right now," a TODAY insider reveals. "It's such a downer. It's just not the time, and it's not what our audience wants, either."
It isn't always safe to use 'un-named' sources foss - too much like unprotected sex...

But a second top suit (http://www.drudgereport.com/flashacn.htm) strongly denies there is any "Coulter ban".

"Look for a re-invite, as soon as Wednesday," said the news executive, who asked not to be named.

And now from Editor and Publisher... (http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003927154)
NBC Caves on Coulter -- Booked for Wednesday

"So in the end, NBC will probably get more viewers and Coulter will sell more books—or at least further convince those in her camp that the MSM isn’t on her side."

Do you think she will cancel - as she threatened to do on Monday on Hannity/Colmes?

Heck - she gets what she wants - more buyers - who knows - NBC maybe gets what they want - more viewers -

Maybe they were in bed together all the time :)

Oddly I don't feel eviscerated, NBC didn't 'ban' her for life, they aren't undermining the sales of her book. As I said before, perhaps before jumping on all these things we should wait...

I still think they did it for numbers - which equals money. Just a reason I didn't think of... create great buzz, swoop in, change your mind, and have her on anyway...

You gotta love the media!

NBC didn't 'ban' her for lifethey aren't undermining the sales of her book. As I said before, perhaps before jumping on all these things we should wait...
It's abundantly obvious that you won't directly respond to my challenge, so I needed press the issue through the second page. But this statement deserves response-

This thread isn't about what NBC does in the future. The decision to keep Coulter off the air was an editorial one made in private. They clearly have an agenda and this decision was done in private to support their ideology. You however refuse to acknowledge this.

Since the story was made public by Drudge, what they do now is irrelevant. It will be in reaction to the story. The decisions we are talking about were made behind the scenes, in the "un-biased and fair" offices of NBC and MSNBC News, when the doors were supposed to be closed.

Old expression: Character is what you do when no one is looking.
NBC has demonstrated their organization's character, again, very clearly.

I still think they did it for numbers - which equals money. Just a reason I didn't think of... create great buzz, swoop in, change your mind, and have her on anyway...
You must over tired and delusional.....
You think they intentionally insulted the woman, apparently interfered with the release of her new book, purposefully leaked contradictory information to the Drudge Report, issued a policy banning her from MSNBC (a network with no ratings, and demonstrably furthers decimates your "ratings/revenue" argument) and upset of Scarborough, all to then invite her back on, have her accept the invitation, build up buzz, in an effort to increase interest in the show and her book?

First of all, that's absurd.
But, most interesting, if you think that's even plausible, that means you recognize that all of the other excuses you've presented are total garbage because they're in stark contrast.

I was waiting to see how long it would take before we got a "socialism to save capitalism" argument, and I think we've gotten it now. Despite the fact that she must hurt ratings, the audience is more liberal, and all the other nonsense you spewed on the first page, now they are doing it because she's a ratings gold mine and they want to make an event of her next appearance.

Bravo... You truly have no integrity when discussing politics or current events here. You will say absolutely anything so long as it paints a more flattering picture of your liberal institutions.

You gotta love the media!
You can't possible believe the things you say in here.

It's abundantly obvious that you won't directly respond to my challenge, so I needed press the issue through the second page. But this statement deserves response-

This thread isn't about what NBC does in the future. The decision to keep Coulter off the air was an editorial one made in private. They clearly have an agenda and this decision was done in private to support their ideology. You however refuse to acknowledge this.

So, Cal- I should care that you pressed this issue through to a second page?

And I said a couple of times (post 19 and post 29) that Steve Capus could have decided he didn't want to hear her - Steve Capus is the head of NBC News - I have acknowledged that he could have decided he had enough of her. It could have been his editorial choice - I don't know - I gave out lots of possibilities, in hope that you would understand that the whole 'emotional issue' is just one of many things that could have been happening here.

And, this doesn't prove anything - the fact that she will (perhaps) be on NBC tomorrow doesn't prove that NBC decided behind closed doors that to further some liberal political agenda that they needed to pull her.

Nowhere have I seen a reason why they pulled her - it could have been the Media Matters letter writing campaign, do you know Cal? I don't know how many responses they got (which they have formulas to determine points). You seem to know that it was an emotional reaction, without ever having any statement or evidence from an accredited source at NBC.

It does look like NBC is bowing to the right (drudge is conservative) in regards to their re-booking her. Isn't that awful - shouldn't I be crying and whining? Isn't that what the right does when the left gets something altered in the media. But, how many 'letters' did they get regarding her cancellation, it looks to be that it was enough to make them rethink.

Couldn't this all have been a battle of the letter writers - the Media Matters letter writing machine vs the Drudge letter writing machine.

I don't care - actually I am glad - put the wench on, let everyone see what she is all about - the more the merrier.

Heck, I wrote NBC, telling them that they didn't need to make a martyr of Ms Coulter - maybe they paid attention to me (no way - but, I did write).

And who cares about NBC's character - you should be dancing in the streets if you think this hurts their credibility.

Issued a policy banning her from MSNBC (a network with no ratings, and demonstrably furthers decimates your "ratings/revenue" argument)

The only thing I can find on the 'supposed' banning is the quote from the unnamed source at NBC. As far as I can see NBC never officially made a statement that she was banned, and in fact, in the same article that states the 'banned' statement another NBC source was saying that they would reschedule her for Wednesday. Obviously a somewhat more reliable source... the one I used in post 33.

And I kept saying I don't have a clue why they canceled her and then re-booked her. You keep saying "I have the definitive answer", well you don't Cal. This is big time broadcast media - where who knows what happens or why it happens, other than probably over 90% of the time it has to do with ratings and money.

Money makes everyone friends... It will be interesting to see if Ann Coulter shows up. If she does, don't you think she is doing it to self promote, and sell books? Where is her 'high road'? Shouldn't she be turning down all opportunities to be seen on NBC - they slighted her, they belittled her, they tried to interfere with her book release (wow, is that one stretching), why, oh why, would she ever lower herself to grace their unworthy airways?

Money - and numbers. They all play the game.

And I don't really care about this Cal - it is a funny blip in the timeline of media ups and downs. I just like to dig Coulter when I get a chance - it really is fun.

I still think they did it for numbers

They did it because Obama's people wanted to shut her up. Simple as that.

Couldn't this all have been a battle of the letter writers - the Media Matters letter writing machine vs the Drudge letter writing machine.

Do you understand what The Drudge Report is?

Drudge letter writing machine.... lmao.

I am sorry - I should have said drudge type followers letter writing campaign... my slip

I know what the drudge report is...
Heck I loved reading his stuff when he was obsessed with Hillary - it was wonderful reading... ;)

And isn't his claim to fame Monica L - I think he broke the story - right?

I know what the drudge report is...
Heck I loved reading his stuff

Hmmm. Can you post some of the stuff HE writes? I would love to read the stuff too.

Didn't he write this????
http://drudgereport.com/flashacn.htm

and this...
Amazon.com: Drudge Manifesto: Matt Drudge: Books

I am sorry - I should have said drudge type followers letter writing campaign... my slip
What is a "Drudge Type Follower?"
The reality is, Matt Drudge is about Matt Drudge. He's a libertarian, but his first love is web traffic. After the banner headline and hastily written scoop, the rest of the website is a wonderful central location to read op-eds and world newspapers.

As for Coulter, we'll see how the next interview goes tomorrow.
Do you think they'll treat her with the same sort of respect and deference that they give authors critical of Bush? Or will it be a similar tone as an interview with other edgy opinion writers from the left, like Maureen Dowd or more specifically, the late Moly Ivins?

He writes most of the gossip-y stuff on his site..

Matt Drudge's The Drudge Report is one of the best-known political news and gossip sites on the Internet. Drudge grew up near Washington, D. C., then headed west to Los Angeles with dreams of becoming a journalist. After a series of frustrating low-paying jobs, he launched his own website in 1995, combining news links and headlines with celebrity gossip "scoops" he had overheard or found by digging through the trash. Drudge also added political gossip to the mix, and in 1998 broke the story of an affair between Monica Lewinsky and U.S. President Bill Clinton. The story made him a permanent fixture on the political gossip scene. Drudge's flair for the theatrical (he prefers to dress in the costume of an early 20th century muckraker) made him an instant hit on the same media outlets he regularly criticized, and soon he had his own commentary show on radio and TV. By 2000 he had been fired by both ABC radio and Fox television, but in 2001 he bounced back with a weekly radio show on WABC.

Drudge type follower - someone who loves stuff that used to be in the trash... ;)

Dudge type follower - someone who loves stuff that used to be in the trash... ;)

Perhaps a better definition would be someone who appreciates an information source that isn't filtered and censored by the editorial bias of the mainstream press.

Foxy, your comment is a little snarky to come from you. BUT---does that mean that you're a little on the zaftig side?
KS

I was waiting to see how long it would take before we got a "socialism to save capitalism" argument, and I think we've gotten it now. Despite the fact that she must hurt ratings, the audience is more liberal, and all the other nonsense you spewed on the first page, now they are doing it because she's a ratings gold mine and they want to make an event of her next appearance.


BINGO! You can't have it both ways. *owned*

Coulter got bumped for 24 hours and was on Today this morning.

Foxy, your comment is a little snarky to come from you. BUT---does that mean that you're a little on the zaftig side?
KS

Ah, well, one member here (who shall remain nameless) has seen pretty current nudes of me and he thought I was a little on the thin side... ;) I don't think so, I am always in 'I need to lose 10 lbs mode" - I am about a size 8Tall (Sandra Bullock is a size 8)

Not skeletal like Ann though... Although she looks worse lately (I don't think I would have posted the 'bony' thing if I had seen her recently) - I did watch the hannity/colmes (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,476745,00.html) interview (more funny live than just the text - I would recommend it) and she looked pretty bad, anorexic even. I hope she is OK.

I agree with her that the rise in out of wedlock births is a bad thing for society in general.

combining news links and headlinesSeeing that Drudge is my home page, 95% of what goes on on his site is news links and headlines. He hardly ever posts his own stuff anymore unless it is * breaking * and even then, the chances are that someone sent it to him.

Ah, well, one member here (who shall remain nameless) has seen pretty current nudes of me and he thought I was a little on the thin side... ;)
I thought you said the photos added 10 pounds.

Ann Coulter faces off against Harry Smith

By Matea Gold
January 7, 2009

http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/news/la-et-ann-coulter7-2009jan07,0,4709566.story

Reporting from New York

-- Conservative author Ann Coulter initially seemed pleased Tuesday to appear on CBS' "The Early Show," especially after an interview she was set to do on NBC's "Today" the same morning was canceled.

"You are the most brilliant person in the mainstream media, the most manly," she told CBS anchor Harry Smith.

But by the end of the segment, she was no longer lavishing compliments on Smith, who aggressively confronted the controversial writer (http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=4701138n) about the allegations in her latest book, "Guilty: Liberal 'Victims' and Their Assault on America."

At one point, he suggested that she was crying victim herself and "should have a cross."

"Here's my problem," Smith told Coulter at the outset. "Because you try to be funny, because you have this kind of sophomoric, sort of simplistic kind of view of so many things . . . who's going to take you seriously?"

"I think any comedy writer will tell you that sophomoric is New York Times code for funny, so I thank you for that," Coulter retorted.

Smith said afterward that he hadn't planned for the interview to get contentious, noting that Coulter devotes much of her book to challenging the mainstream media.

"I was just going to challenge her back," he said in an interview. "The thing is, there are things she says that have a real place in our ongoing political conversation in terms of issues of importance to everybody. The point I was trying to make to her was that if she was more serious, she would be taken more seriously."

In an e-mail, Coulter said she was flattered by Smith's questioning. "He treated me like a Republican vice presidential candidate!" she wrote.

Their seven-minute exchange was the latest dust-up involving Coulter, a polarizing personality who is adept at generating attention for her bestselling books. Monday, she cried foul when an appearance she was set to make on "Today" was canceled, telling Fox News’ Sean Hannity and Alan Colmes (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0%2C2933%2C476745%2C00.html) that NBC had only booked her as a "charade" to keep her from going on other shows.

NBC disputed that, saying that Coulter was bumped so the program could devote more time to covering the developments in the Gaza Strip, for which host Matt Lauer interviewed former British Prime Minister Tony Blair.

"We've had Ann Coulter on 'Today' many times, but because of the news in Washington and the Middle East, we decided to cancel her appearance on Tuesday morning," said NBC spokeswoman Megan Kopf. "Understanding the media as well as she does, we are sure she knows this happens from time to time."

After Coulter's complaints -- and coverage on the Drudge Report, which reported that NBC had banned her for life (http://www.drudgereportarchives.com/data/2009/01/05/20090105_225904_flashacn.htm), which the network denied -- she was invited to appear on "Today" Wednesday.

That adds up to a media bonanza for Coulter, who also appeared Tuesday on the Fox News morning program "Fox & Friends." But it was her interview on "The Early Show" that has so far generated the most attention.

Smith, who is known for his even-keeled, affable demeanor, noted in his tease for the segment that Coulter called him "certifiably insane" in her book. "Perhaps I am, for having her on the program this morning," he added.

In their interview, he objected to her criticizing him in her book for asking Sen. Edward Kennedy last year about whether Barack Obama was a target for assassination, saying, "that was a legitimate question to ask."

When Coulter responded that all would-be or successful presidential assassins were "anarchists, communists, liberals, they were some form of basically Obama's base," Smith urged her five times to "take a breath."

"I'm breathing fine," she responded.

Smith said that as he read her book, "the more I kept thinking, well, you're the whiner. You're the one who's claiming victimhood here."

"You should put yourself up on a cross," he added, extending his arms wide.

Later, Smith said he didn't have any regrets about how he conducted the interview, but he was "not satisfied that we served any public good."

"People sort of verbally wrestling with each other -- you get a lot of heat and a lot of sweat, but I'm not sure there's any particular satisfaction for either side," he added.

__________________________________________________ ______________

I guess the LA Times consider Anne to be an entertainer :p as this was in the entertainment section.

Send NBC and MSNBC a letter saying you are boycotting their sponsors and any products GE (owner of both networks) makes.

Nothing talks like money.

Let's face it. The Left can't handle Coulter. So is waaay too smart for them.


Seeing that Drudge is my home page, 95% of what goes on on his site is news links and headlines. He hardly ever posts his own stuff anymore unless it is * breaking * and even then, the chances are that someone sent it to him.

So, my point is proven right here - a 'drudge type follower' encouraged letter writing to NBC to complain about Ann's being dropped from the line-up...

Thank you Bryan.

And didn't you read Drudge's Hillary stuff- it was hilarious- I love his gossip-y, did you hear, do you know, articles - but, you are right, he doesn't write then often enough anymore. His site is much better with his little asides.

Oh, I sent you the pole dancing shots - not the 'art nudes' - silly....;)

Why be "serious" with someone who is not interested in having an honest debate and, in his own words was, "...going to challenge her back", and, according to the article, "aggressively confronted the controversial writer".

It is rather clear that the interview was hostile toward her, and ment to trap her and facilitate smearing of her. You cannot have an honest debate with someone looking to smear and marginalize you. Instead, you expose the aburdity of their argument.

In fact, at first, she tried to play nice and make a joke about it. It wasn't her "crossing the line" in this interview, it was him. She tried to be polite at first, but, as always, ultimately refused to back down.

So, failing to trap her in anything substantive, he falls back on the claim that she wasn't being "serious" when he pretty much set that interview up to not have any "serious" discussion.

Also, did he stay on the questions (or general line of questioning) that was given to her before the show? I can't prove anything, but I doubt it. It is easier to trap someone that way, but Coulter is used to that.

The left celebrates hostile attacks mascarading as journalism in this manner. Just look at the who Frost/Nixon movie being made about The Nixon Interviews.

And fow....smearing Drudge and Drudge readers? Classy!:rolleyes:

The left celebrates hostile attacks mascarading as journalism in this manner. Just look at the who Frost/Nixon movie being made about The Nixon Interviews.

Have you seen the movie Shag? I have and would love to discuss it...

And fox....smearing Drudge and Drudge readers? Classy!:rolleyes:

Look more closely - I said I read his stuff, I love his trash! I was reading Drudge back during Clinton. Do you still considerate it 'smear' or 'we are all in this dumpster together'?:) I think it is more of the later, but, if you need another way to impinge me - please do - down here in the dumpster we don't have much else to do ;)

Drudge Report-Shmudge Report...
how do I get Fox to me e-mail me those pictures....

Poor Pepperman's head just exploded.

So, my point is proven right here - a 'drudge type follower' encouraged letter writing to NBC to complain about Ann's being dropped from the line-up...

Wrong. Where is it ever posted on the Drudge Report to write letters?

I wrote that to make the Left cringe as that is their favorite tactic to silence people they don't like. The likes of Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton are quite professional in their shakedown tactics of major corporations and sponsors.

Whenever the Left gets a taste of their own medicine, they say yuk!


And I do want to complain about those pole shots. You were wearing those, you know, covers.

Wrong. Where is it ever posted on the Drudge Report to write letters?
Nowhere - but the little drudgies go off to other sites and tell others to spread the word...

Not as much fun as droogies though...
http://i60.photobucket.com/albums/h20/lizbeth_white/myspace/droogies.jpg

I think it is the pasties that make me look like I need to lose that 10 lbs - don't you Bryan?;) Especially the purple ones... Maybe I should look into tassels...

Drudge Report-Shmudge Report...
how do I get Fox to me e-mail me those pictures....

Poor Pepperman's head just exploded.

Huh ?

Huh ?:bowrofl: :bowrofl:

Look more closely - I said I read his stuff, I love his trash! I was reading Drudge back during Clinton. Do you still considerate it 'smear' or 'we are all in this dumpster together'?:) I think it is more of the later, but, if you need another way to impinge me - please do - down here in the dumpster we don't have much else to do ;)


You are claiming it is "trash". What is that supposed to mean? Do you think he is somehow not credible? if so, why?

There seems to be an air of condesention toward Drudge and his reporting/website. As if it is kinda interesting but not to be taken seriously. I have seen this from you before toward other sources (Coulter) that you view as entertaining but lacking in credibility, usually for less then justifiable reasons (bias). I take issue with that...

You are claiming it is "trash". What is that supposed to mean? Do you think he is somehow not credible? if so, why?

I think it is very credible trash... His gossipy stuff - He used to do a lot of catty 'who is sleeping with who', 'who is telling on who', 'who is going to be pouting next'. Drudge is best when he meows... He needs to get in a cat fight every now and then. He has lost some of his edginess.

There seems to be an air of condesention toward Drudge and his reporting/website. As if it is kinda interesting but not to be taken seriously. I have seen this from you before toward other sources (Coulter) that you view as entertaining but lacking in credibility, usually for less then justifiable reasons (bias). I take issue with that...

His links are links - there isn't any judgment to be placed there. I think his 'scoops' almost always are founded on basically factual reporting - he does get in trouble sometimes with his 'unnamed' sources, but everyone gets bitten by them occasionally.

Couldn't he be entertaining and credible? I just find what he 'reports' on to be usually on the fringe of the beltway...

[QUOTE=foxpaws;463309]Ah, well, one member here (who shall remain nameless) has seen pretty current nudes of me...

I'll promise not to say I was the one if you PM me!!!:D
KS

THIS IS THE DOWNER WE'VE BEEN WAITING FOR!
January 7, 2009


After NBC canceled me "for life" on Monday -- until seven or eight hours later when the ban was splashed across the top of The Drudge Report, forcing a red-faced NBC to withdraw the ban -- an NBC insider told The Drudge Report: "We are just not interested in anyone so highly critical of President-elect Obama, right now," explaining that "it's such a downer. It's just not the time, and it's not what our audience wants, either."

In point of fact, I'm not particularly critical of Obama in my new book. I'm critical of the media for behaving like a protection racket for Obama rather than the constitutionally protected guardians of our liberty that they claim to be. So I think what the NBC insider meant to say is that NBC is not interested in anyone so highly critical of NBC right now. It's such a downer, it's just not the time, and it's not what their audience wants right now, either.

In fact, I think my book is the downer America has been waiting for! So herewith, I present an excerpt from the smash new book out this week, "Guilty: Liberal Victims and Their Assault on America":

When the Obama family materialized, the media was seized by a mass psychosis that hadn't been witnessed since Beatlemania. OK! magazine raved that the Obamas "are such an all-American family that they almost make the Brady Bunch look dysfunctional." Yes, who can forget the madcap episode when the Bradys' wacky preacher tells them the government created AIDS to kill blacks!

Still gushing, OK! magazine's crack journalists reported: "Mom goes to bake sales, dad balances the checkbook, and the girls love Harry Potter" -- and then the whole family goes to a racist huckster who shouts, "God damn America!"

Months before network anchors were interrogating vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin on the intricacies of foreign policy, here is how NBC's Brian Williams mercilessly grilled presidential candidate Barack Obama: "What was it like for you last night, the part we couldn't see, the flight to St. Paul with your wife, knowing what was awaiting?"

Twisting the knife he had just plunged into Obama, Williams followed up with what has come to be known as a "gotcha" question: "And you had to be thinking of your mother and your father." Sarah Palin was memorizing the last six kings of Swaziland for her media interviews, but Obama only needed to say something nice about his parents to be considered presidential material.

The media's fawning over Obama knew no bounds, and yet, in the midst of the most incredible media conspiracy to turn this jug-eared clodhopper into some combination of Winston Churchill and a young Elvis, you were being a bore if you mentioned the liberal media. Oh surely we've exploded that old chestnut. ... Look! Look, Obama just lit up another Marlboro! Geez, does smoking make you look cool, or what! Yeah, Obama!.

The claim that there's no such thing as a left wing press is a patent lie said to enrage conservatives. Newspapers read like the press under Kim Jung Il, which, outside of a police state, looks foolish. The prose is straight out of The Daily Worker, full of triumphal rhetoric with implicit exclamation points. Still, their chanted slogans fill your brain, like one of those bad songs you can't stop humming.

There is no other explanation for the embarrassing paeans to Obama's "eloquence." His speeches were a run-on string of embarrassing, sophomoric Hallmark card bromides. It seemed only a matter of time before Obama would slip and tell a crowd what a special Dad it had always been to him.

The major theme of Obama's campaign was the audacity of his running for president. He titled his keynote address at the 2004 Democratic National Convention, "The Audacity of Hope" –- named after a sermon given by his spiritual mentor Jeremiah Wright, whom we were not allowed to mention without being accused of playing dirty tricks. (Rejected speech titles from sermons by Rev. Wright included "God Damn America!," "The U.S. of K.K.A." and "The Racist United States of America.")

What is so audacious about announcing that you're running for president? Every U.S. Senator has run for president or is currently thinking about running for president. Dennis Kucinich ran for president. Lyndon LaRouche used to run for president constantly.

But the media were giddy over their latest crush. Even when Obama broke a pledge and rejected public financing for his campaign -- an issue more dear to The New York Times than even gay marriage -- the Times led the article on Obama's broken pledge with his excuse. "Citing the specter of attacks from independent groups on the right," the Times article began, "Sen. Barack Obama announced Thursday that he would opt out of the public financing system for the general election."

So he had to break his pledge because he was a victim of the Republican Attack Machine.

When Obama broke his word and voted for the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act bill (FISA), the Times' editorial began: We are shocked and dismayed by Sen. Obama's vote on ... oh, who are we kidding? We can't stay mad at this guy! Isn't he just adorable? Couldn't you just eat him up with a spoon? Is he looking at me? Ohmigod, I think he's looking at me!!!! Couldn't you just die?

It has ever been thus.

COPYRIGHT 2009 ANN COULTER

Coulter is so brilliant and hits the nail on the head time and time again.

Bony ride or not, (have had a few of those), I'd still give her the time of her life, as long as she kept talking and making me laugh.

So is so brilliant and hit the nail on the head time and time again.

Bony ride or not, (have had a few of those), I'd still give her the time of her life, sa long as she kept talking and making me laugh.

Here get this (http://cgi.ebay.com/Stroke-On-A-Rope-Soap-Gag-Gift-Bachelor-Hand-Fist-New_W0QQitemZ310113543445QQcmdZViewItemQQptZWeddin g_Party_Supplies?hash=item310113543445&_trksid=p3286.c0.m14&_trkparms=72%3A1205%7C66%3A2%7C65%3A12%7C39%3A1%7C 240%3A1318%7C301%3A0%7C293%3A1%7C294%3A50) and you bony ride days will be over! ;)

Here get this Couldn't they at least paint the fingernails so I could pretend it was a woman?:shifty:

I think it is very credible trash... His gossipy stuff - He used to do a lot of catty 'who is sleeping with who', 'who is telling on who', 'who is going to be pouting next'. Drudge is best when he meows... He needs to get in a cat fight every now and then. He has lost some of his edginess.



His links are links - there isn't any judgment to be placed there. I think his 'scoops' almost always are founded on basically factual reporting - he does get in trouble sometimes with his 'unnamed' sources, but everyone gets bitten by them occasionally.

Couldn't he be entertaining and credible? I just find what he 'reports' on to be usually on the fringe of the beltway...

Fair enough...sorry to jump down your throat on the Drudge thing....

Couldn't they at least paint the fingernails so I could pretend it was a woman?:shifty:

Thats a good idea, but you know back in the day when you had to pleasure yourself....I have to ask......did you paint your nails ? :shifty:

Man hands (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Man_hands)?

Drudge Report-Shmudge Report...
how do I get Fox to me e-mail me those pictures....

Poor Pepperman's head just exploded.

That made me laugh; how do we know the "nameless poster" wasn't Pepper to begin with, he is rather charming and has a unique way with the ladies.

That made me laugh; how do we know the "nameless poster" wasn't Pepper to begin with, he is rather charming and has a unique way with the ladies.

Perhaps it was.... he must have been sweet talking her through private messages.



here's the TODAY SHOW APPEARANCE:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ikTcXy0wAxw

The lower third they showed certainly was an interesting editorial choice...

Shocker! :eek:
Coulter generates controversy to sell books.