Blatant Media Post- Ann Coulter On Brian Wilson Thursday At 5p

Author, and lightning rod Ann Coulter will be on with Brian Wilson Thursday at 5 to talk about her new book Guilty. This will be her only Toledo interview.
At 4:30 mayoral candidate Jim Moody sits in with Brian.
Next Tuesday Keith Wilkowski will join me on the Morning News at 7:30a Enjoy!

No votes yet

but this is a non-event.

appreciate the effort, but this psycho isn't anybody but a taxpayer, and it's the outlet such as your's that give a false sense of credibility with this dolt and provides her a podium to spew her ignorance.

"lightning rod"? only because you're hyping this nitwit as such.

sorry, no brownie points for this event.

Gots to disagree with you, Brian, despite the wisdom your name connotes.

Ann Coulter is a bit strident for my tastes, but she is a national figure. Landing an interview with her is worth advertising.

to diasgree

the only reason she is somebody is because her outlandish comments used to warrant front page news, nothing more.

And because she took her bigotry to the publishers to sell books, she made a little cash.

I hope Brian takes calls. lol

I mean Brian, the other Brian, not this Brian or the above Brian, the above above Brian with the radio show.

That Brian. :)

I find that Coulter's approach is counter-productive to conservative ideals. Sure, she makes some on the far right chuckle, but her polarizing effects on centrists and independents makes her a toxic liability for the right.

Personally, I find her writing to be shallow, avoiding thoughtful analysis for cheap one-liners. Moreover, she's worse on television and radio, where her pit-bull-on-steroids style destroys an pretense of intelligent debate.

But hey - she's made a helluva lot more money than me as a writer/pundit, so who am I to talk?

"Joe the Plumber" has done even less than Ms. Coulter and has more credibility than Ms. Coulter.

I suggest accosting a national candidate while the coals are still warm!

;)

Coulter is a Constitutional attorney and writes her own work. Joe is a plumber without a license who had a ghost-writer. If you ever have the opportunity to hear her when speak without the snide, offensive jabs, you might find her to be a smart, interesting woman. HOWEVER, we rarely get that opportunity.

I have read a couple of Coulter's books...and I won't read this one--it will be same-old, same-old. I completely agree with HistoryMike, who captured her right-on in his post above.

My daughter, who aspires to a career in law and politics, latched on to Coulter as a role model. Coulter is attractive, articulate, and bold--unfortunately, she thinks that the solution to the Midlle East problem is blowing everything up and converting everyone to Christianity. Not quite what I want my child to believe or espouse.

So, I've talked to her about what constitutes "crossing the line," and why Coulter does it. I think of her as a comedianne; after all, she is trying to get laughs.

Coulter is the conservative far right's answer to Michael Moore. Nicer to look at, granted, but still has the same motives. Stir up a bunch of crap for no other reason than to sell books.

As much as some people try to discredit Micheal Moore, his work deals with issues such as healthcare, gun control, the auto industry, etc...topics that deserve considerable debate. Can we say the same of Coulter's work (i.e. liberals are bad)? I think not.

Pink Slip

Yes, and Moore's work is absolutely free of ideological taint that would lead him to selective editing, making up "facts" and outright lying.

"Taking on serious issues" does not make one virtuous. Most dictators have taken on serious issues

Everyone has a slant Brian--you should know that. I remember when CNN did an expose on Moore's film Sicko, and tried to refute some claims in the film. It turned out CNN had the "facts" wrong and admitted it. Still, pushing for better healthcare is quite different than what Mr Coulter does...

Pink Slip

There is a difference between "slant" and the disingenuous use of interview footage and making up facts.

Perhaps Coulter has done this. I don't know because I don't like her style. Therefore, I don't read her books or pay much attention when she's on television. However, it's well documented that Moore resorts to fiction when the facts don't make his case.

However, it's well documented that Moore resorts to fiction when the facts don't make his case

Well-documented by partisan dissenters perhaps. And you're admittedly not qualified to compare Moore and Coulter's work, which was the point I questioned.

Pink Slip

Pinky, you're going to have to tell me where you get those glasses that make everything black and white because all I can see are shades of gray.

I think Coulter is right in a lot of what she says. But I also find some of what she says offensive. I don't like it, therefore, I don't read it.

Michael Moore makes low-budget movies. I don't agree with him most of the time. But I have seen a few of his movies and I do know that CNN (a bastion of liberal defense) was able to document the selective splicing of an interview Moore did with a congressman for his ant-America movie.

Fact is, The Barbie Doll is scary and the roly poly pill bug is a cheat and liar.

Again, there's that mindless attacks on the right and mindless defense of the left. Did you go to bed and set your blogging machine on autopilot?

I don't believe I "attacked" Coulter at all. I simply pointed out that a comparison of Coulter to Moore was misleading. Whether or not you agree with Moore, he takes up causes and issues that are important to Americans. You can't say the same of Coulter.

By the way, does anyone else think it's hypocritical for people like Brian to accuse those on the left for being "anti-American" when they criticize our politicians decisions....yet when those on the right do it they think they're embodying some sort of Founding Father skepticism?

Pink Slip

I don't think that everybody on the left is anti-American. There are many conscientious, dedicated, patriotic liberals with whom I disagree, but would never doubt their patriotism.

When I worked in the Senate, one of the Senators I admired the most was the late Paul Wellstone of MN. He was a gentleman of the first degree, treated everyone with respect, and pursued an agenda he believed in. I know that most Republican senators and staffers respected him as well. Mike DeWine thought highly of him and was glad to have him in the senate because Wellstone was the only male senator shorter than he was!

Michael Moore is no Paul Wellestone. Barack Obama was always a gentleman in the Senate. I didn't interact with him much, but I can tell you that Tom Daschle is a good and decent man. Daschle had to school the abrasive NY senator, Chuck Schumer on the moors and traditions of the senate. My admiration is not reserved for those with whom I agree.

Michael Moore is just anti-American. "Taking on" issues is not the measure of a statesman. Taking on issues with plausible arguments posed in a truthful manner is. Michael Moore has fallen woefully short on that count.

Moore's no more anti-American than you or me Brian. More people should be highly critical of our government like he is. He may exaggerate in his films, but even when he was sued, the courts sided with him

Pink Slip

Well, "What Coulter does" is to push for a return to Federalist ideals and Originalism (the belief that the Constitution is a static document and is not open to interpretation). The left is the biggest threat to her beliefs.

Moore feels strongly that the right is the biggest threat to his beliefs.

Of course! Because what better way is there to "push for a return to Federalist ideals and Originalism", than to

--Suggest that the Jews need to be perfected

--Call a presidential candidate a "faggot"

--Suggesting that women shouldn't be able to vote

--Say we should convert all Muslims into Christians

etc, etc...

Are these "Federalist ideals and Originalism", or is the left making her say these things?

Pink Slip

Gots to agree with you here, Pink Slip.

The Constitution is not static. If it were, only 3/5 of blacks would be counted in the census and women and blacks would not be allowed to vote.

The framers fully intended for the Constitution to be organic and dynamic. It is that dynamic nature of the Constitution that has kept the republic around for 232 years.

I wasn't really going there with my comment, but I'm glad we agree. As long as you bring it up, it would seem that the existence of a judicial branch (who's purpose is to interpret the law) would contradict the idea of Originalism. If there is a true original intent in the text of the Constitution, why would there be a need for interpretation? But perhaps I'm being simplistic.

Pink Slip

has been on Wilson's show before. Nothing noteworthy here. These two basically have extreme-conservative masturbatory phone-sex with each other, under the guise of an actual 'interview'.

I'm trying so hard not to picture them bumping there Adam's apples together...

Well, I'm off to be sick now.

When it comes to evaluating arguments, regardless of their politics, social status, where they live, what they had for lunch, or what they drive or their vocation, all that really matters is the criteria:

True support--factual, or intellectually acceptable

Relevant support--connected or pertinent to the conclusion

Adequate support--sufficient in number, kind, and weight

Clear support--not vague or ambiguous

Knowable support--must qualify as knowledge (warranted true belief) not unwarranted presumption.

Source:  Kenneth Samples: http://www.cambridgebibles.com/Media/MediaManager/Excerpt_Samples_Difference2.pdf page 13.

See also:  Stephen Toulmin's Uses of Argument

Thanks for playing, jayott.

Pink Slip

Under the Toulmin Model, which I teach, neither Coulter's nor Moore's arguments are effective.

Both are entertaining.

Entertaining indeed!

Perhaps that's the whole point since in the eyes of their audiences, they're damned if they use a dry, academic/jusrisprudential approach and damned if they employ humor, sarcasm or irony.

The problem is there is no model I'm aware of that definitively answers how to strike a balance or what it should even be.

Forget about Lucas County's "Fat Czar" we need a "Logic Czar".

Why does she refer to the president as B. Hussein Obama? It is blatantly disingenuous.

COULTER: No, but I do think anyone named B. Hussein Obama should avoid using "hijack" and "religion" in the same sentence.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200706260004

The obvious reason is that she wants to portray him as Un-American and place him in the same category of other infamous Muslims with that name. Seems to me she is lumping him with terrorists. He has never referred to himself in this manner, so why should she.

All she really wants to do is sell her books. In this case, I'll keep my money in my pocket. I may listen, but it certainly won't be that I agree with her or the way she does it, but more to see what other hatred she can spew so I can erect my own wall of defense.

Never a good idea to put your head in the sand.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.