From the “Small Victories Are Better Than None at All” Department comes word that a Greensboro, N.C., weekly has decided to dump Ann Coulter’s column.
Yes! Weekly, which began running Coulter’s column last summer, said this week that it’s going to replace it with William F. Buckley’s. The weekly’s editor says that evidence of plagiarism as well as Coulter’s nasty comments about 9/11 widows prompted him to think about canceling her column, and that reader opinion in letters and an Internet poll pushed him over the edge.
“Sure,” the editor writes, “there will be some who bemoan her absence from our pages and others who will question my decision to pull from our ranks a writer whose book currently sits atop the New York Times bestseller list. And they may have a point — she’s sold a lot of books. But I’m not gonna be helping her do it anymore. So goodbye, Ann. It’s been a wild ride.”
Yes! Weekly may not be the biggest fish in the pond, but Editor and Publisher sees a “pattern” developing: Over the course of the past few weeks, dailies in Augusta, Ga., and Cedar Rapids, Iowa, have dropped Coulter’s column, and Louisiana’s Shreveport Times is said to be thinking about it.
We’re pretty sure that proves that all of their editors are gay.
Most by now are probably familiar with Ann Coulter’s declaration, when discussing the Herman Cain sexual harassment debacle earlier this week, that “our blacks are so much better than their blacks.” Most probably weren’t all that shocked to hear this sort of race-baiting from Coulter, who’s made a lucrative career dispensing right-wing vitriol. Most probably just ignored her uncouth remarks and moved on.
Still, just in case you were looking for a more complete exegesis of the logic behind Coulter’s statement, Jon Stewart, along with his “Daily Show” correspondents, extended the argument to its logical extreme last night.
Ten years ago, a tragedy brought us all closer together. Last night, Jon Stewart recalled another moment, just two days after, when all the solidarity engendered through a national trauma began to dissipate into the political ether. Opportunists — first Jerry Falwell, then Ann Coulter, Glenn Beck, all the “Ground Zero Mosque” people (not to say anything of the folks in power) — began using the memory of that historical moment for their own personal advantage. “The Daily Show” paid tribute:
09/13/01: Remembering the Day We Forgot the Lessons of the Day We Had Sworn We Would Always Remember
Ed Schultz targeted Ann Coulter and her recent comments on radiation’s positive health benefits in his “Take Down” segment on Friday night. Last week, Ann Coulter wrote a blog post about the positive health benefits of radiation and made national headlines when Bill O’Reilly scolded her on his show for the shoddy research and inappropriate timing of her incendiary claims. Schultz agreed and took the scolding to the next level saying:
A lot of people say Ann Coulter is toxic. But we had no idea that she would take that literally. You would laugh at her if she wasn’t making light of a terrible tragedy.
Watch Schultz’s segment in full. Note Ann Coulter’s glowing green head.
What’s the opposite of fear-mongering? False-sense-of-security-mongering, probably. Or whatever you’d call Ann Coulter’s latest blog post claiming that radiation does a body good:
With the terrible earthquake and resulting tsunami that have devastated Japan, the only good news is that anyone exposed to excess radiation from the nuclear power plants is now probably much less likely to get cancer.
Coulter cites a 10-year-old newspaper article and some studies by fringe scientists as proof to her theory. She goes on to compare radition — which she says is “a sort of cancer vaccine” — to “poisons” like zinc and magnesium found in multi-vitamins.
Bill O’Reilly invited Coulter onto his show last night and scolded her for misleading the audience into misunderstanding the well established dangers of radiation:
Republican opinion outfit ConservativeHome polled 1,152 Republican activists (according to “YouGuv America”) on their favorite conservative pundits. The results: mostly unsurprising. Rush Limbaugh is No. 1 and Glenn Beck is No. 2. Republican activists love being angry and scared, and getting lied to.
The only newspaper columnists Republican activists actually like are George Will, at No. 10, and human smarm machine Charles Krauthammer, all the way at No. 3, thanks in large part (I assume) to his frequent appearances on Fox and the fact that he has a professional wrestling stage name. (There is also Ann Coulter at No. 9, but she’s more of a mascot than a columnist.)
The winners, in order:
Rush Limbaugh: 41 percent
Glenn Beck: 33 percent
Charles Krauthammer: 29 percent
Bill O’Reilly: 24 percent
Sean Hannity: 21 percent
Newt Gingrich: 16 percent
Michelle Malkin: 16 percent
Mike Huckabee: 13 percent
Ann Coulter: 13 percent
George Will: 13 percent
It must kill Ann that she’s tied with boring old George Will. It looks like “evil” still barely beats out “crazy,” too, with Rush beating Beck. And angry trumps stupid, with O’Reilly beating Hannity.
The authors of the survey are slightly dismayed by the news that GOP activists enjoy frothing rage and hysterical conspiracy theories more than coherent arguments. “Worryingly, columnists often regarded as among the most thoughtful conservatives did not fare well.” Three people voted for David Frum and 35 people voted for Peggy Noonan.
My Favorite Bimbo: Ann Coulter 
The Schadenfreude News: Early Edition 
Occupy Wall Street & Reaction to The Gilded Age 
A passport to utopia 
“The Fault in Our Stars” and “There Is No Dog”: Not kids’ stuff 
Ricky Gervais: My conscience never takes a day off 
Lessons of a very sexy pirate costume 
America’s failed promise of equal opportunity 
Is gay literature over? 
A voice that touched us all 
Whitney Houston dies at 48 
Didn’t she almost have it all? 
Porn’s taboo transsexual stars 
