Ann Coulter in Time
-
- Posts: 10300
- Joined: Tue Mar 12, 2002 6:00 pm
- Please enter the next number in sequence: 1
- Location: SF East Bay Area
Nice reality check, Cowtime. People have to remember that it's entertainment first and foremost and fills up the space between commercials. No matter how serious these folks get, its showbiz.
As I said before though, I like it when they play soundbites from various big-head celebs and either correct them or compare them with various stances. That is Rush's greatest strength, because he has the resources.
I have never liked all his self-congratulatory stuff (Haw, haw, look at me smoke a cigar, haw haw).
The funniest thing I ever heard on Limbaugh was when Bush was running the first time. However it actually works, the DNC or DLC or somebody had put out a fax and email memo with the "talking point" of the fact that Bush "lacked gravitas." So Limbaugh put together an audio montage of all the "respected journalists" and party hacks on the various talking head shows bringing up the issue of "gravitas" while referring to Bush' qualifications. He had Stephanopoulos, Eleanor Clift, Begala, Gore, and a few others all saying this exact same thing, right out of the playbook. Not saying that the other side doesn't do it too, but Rush's staff had the time and ability to put this together. Coulter points out similar things, usually by relating some live event or show she did with the "opposition" and Ingraham also plays a lot of tape too in the same way. Frankly, it gives them their "outrage for the evening" and structures the show.
Not so political, but this morning on the RWHR drive-time show, they were playing a phone tape of CBS somebody Pat O'Brien, who is now in rehab, calling up this woman and talking about "doing a lot of Coke" and having a wild time. It was hilarious. The OReilly dirty talk tapes are excruciating to listen to, they are so stupid. He is taking Fox down the tubes with him, I think, as their ratings fell 7% in latest ratings period.
Cran, you are probably correct about the seat, as you are closer by. I thought that he was going after the seat due to the funeral fiasco and the fact that its a celebrated liberal post, the kind that no Repub could ever aspire to.
As I said before though, I like it when they play soundbites from various big-head celebs and either correct them or compare them with various stances. That is Rush's greatest strength, because he has the resources.
I have never liked all his self-congratulatory stuff (Haw, haw, look at me smoke a cigar, haw haw).
The funniest thing I ever heard on Limbaugh was when Bush was running the first time. However it actually works, the DNC or DLC or somebody had put out a fax and email memo with the "talking point" of the fact that Bush "lacked gravitas." So Limbaugh put together an audio montage of all the "respected journalists" and party hacks on the various talking head shows bringing up the issue of "gravitas" while referring to Bush' qualifications. He had Stephanopoulos, Eleanor Clift, Begala, Gore, and a few others all saying this exact same thing, right out of the playbook. Not saying that the other side doesn't do it too, but Rush's staff had the time and ability to put this together. Coulter points out similar things, usually by relating some live event or show she did with the "opposition" and Ingraham also plays a lot of tape too in the same way. Frankly, it gives them their "outrage for the evening" and structures the show.
Not so political, but this morning on the RWHR drive-time show, they were playing a phone tape of CBS somebody Pat O'Brien, who is now in rehab, calling up this woman and talking about "doing a lot of Coke" and having a wild time. It was hilarious. The OReilly dirty talk tapes are excruciating to listen to, they are so stupid. He is taking Fox down the tubes with him, I think, as their ratings fell 7% in latest ratings period.
Cran, you are probably correct about the seat, as you are closer by. I thought that he was going after the seat due to the funeral fiasco and the fact that its a celebrated liberal post, the kind that no Repub could ever aspire to.
How do you prepare for the end of the world?
- TomB
- Posts: 2124
- Joined: Thu Sep 05, 2002 6:00 pm
- Please enter the next number in sequence: 1
- Location: East Hartford, CT
Woo! Hoo! Jim and I agree on something.jim stone wrote:She strikes me as very bright but over the top.
The sort of conservative conservatives could
do without. But I haven't read time.
You are absolutely correct, Jim. Unfortunately, these "personalities" get popular on both sides of the political spectrum, and just muddle the waters, making it even more difficult for folks to learn the real sides of any issues. Both the conservaties and the liberals would be better off without these type of folks.
All the Best, Tom
"Consult the Book of Armaments"
- Jeff Stallard
- Posts: 314
- Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2004 11:07 am
Coulter is the Republican version of James Carville.
Haven't you people figured out yeat that politics is like a baseball game?! Each team is only concerned about beating the other side, and the audience (us) is only important because they buy season tickets. Both teams are really pretty much the same, but it's in their best interests to polarize you so you'll be more willing to give THEIR team more money. In the end, it doesn't matter which side won the game, because they'll continue to get paid and you'll continue to pay. But boy we sure get fired up about our teams, don't we?
Haven't you people figured out yeat that politics is like a baseball game?! Each team is only concerned about beating the other side, and the audience (us) is only important because they buy season tickets. Both teams are really pretty much the same, but it's in their best interests to polarize you so you'll be more willing to give THEIR team more money. In the end, it doesn't matter which side won the game, because they'll continue to get paid and you'll continue to pay. But boy we sure get fired up about our teams, don't we?
"Reality is the computer hardware, and religions are the operating systems: abstractions that allow us to interact with, and draw meaning from, a reality that would otherwise be incomprehensible."
- Jeff Stallard
- Posts: 314
- Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2004 11:07 am
- Martin Milner
- Posts: 4350
- Joined: Tue Oct 16, 2001 6:00 pm
- Please enter the next number in sequence: 1
- Location: London UK
I think that should be "muddy the waters", Tom.TomB wrote:Woo! Hoo! Jim and I agree on something.jim stone wrote:She strikes me as very bright but over the top.
The sort of conservative conservatives could
do without. But I haven't read time.
You are absolutely correct, Jim. Unfortunately, these "personalities" get popular on both sides of the political spectrum, and just muddle the waters, making it even more difficult for folks to learn the real sides of any issues. Both the conservaties and the liberals would be better off without these type of folks.
All the Best, Tom
I have nothing to add about Ann Coulter because, like most Brits, I was blissfully unaware of her existance before this thread.
It don't mean a thing if it ain't got that schwing
- Wombat
- Posts: 7105
- Joined: Mon Sep 23, 2002 6:00 pm
- antispam: No
- Location: Probably Evanston, possibly Wollongong
Me too, but it's fun to flaunt ignorance from time to time.Martin Milner wrote:
I have nothing to add about Ann Coulter because, like most Brits, I was blissfully unaware of her existance before this thread.
When I saw the photo I thought: wait a minute; didn't she star in Friends? Then again, what would I know? I never watched a single show of Friends. Maybe it was Neighbours. It certainly wasn't Minder.
Well, I think there are big differences tween the teams.Jeff Stallard wrote:Coulter is the Republican version of James Carville.
Haven't you people figured out yeat that politics is like a baseball game?! Each team is only concerned about beating the other side, and the audience (us) is only important because they buy season tickets. Both teams are really pretty much the same, but it's in their best interests to polarize you so you'll be more willing to give THEIR team more money. In the end, it doesn't matter which side won the game, because they'll continue to get paid and you'll continue to pay. But boy we sure get fired up about our teams, don't we?
You know, if Gore had been pres, would there be an
American army in Iraq today? And similarly on several
occasions in the past, the difference between
Reagan and Carter/Mondale changed the shape
of the world. I suppose the differences are most
dramatic when it comes to foreign policy. But
consider the difference the parties would make
to the judiciary, and what difference that
might make to the country for a long time.
The name of the game in a campaign, as I see it, is this:
secure the extremes--the religious right/ Conservatives for the Reps
and the liberals for the Dems--then move to the center,
where the undecided voters are. People like Coulter
don't help the Reps move to the center; she seems
a bit hysterical to me.
by the way I think Bill frist may well be the rep candidate
for pres.
- TomB
- Posts: 2124
- Joined: Thu Sep 05, 2002 6:00 pm
- Please enter the next number in sequence: 1
- Location: East Hartford, CT
Martin: I did indeed meant to say "muddy" but then I got to thinking about muddle- yeah, my life is boring- and went and looked it up. This is what I came up with.Martin Milner wrote:I think that should be "muddy the waters", Tom.TomB wrote:Woo! Hoo! Jim and I agree on something.jim stone wrote:She strikes me as very bright but over the top.
The sort of conservative conservatives could
do without. But I haven't read time.
You are absolutely correct, Jim. Unfortunately, these "personalities" get popular on both sides of the political spectrum, and just muddle the waters, making it even more difficult for folks to learn the real sides of any issues. Both the conservaties and the liberals would be better off without these type of folks.
All the Best, Tom
I have nothing to add about Ann Coulter because, like most Brits, I was blissfully unaware of her existance before this thread.
. To make turbid, or muddy, as water. [Obs.]
[1913 Webster]
He did ill to muddle the water. --L'Estrange. [1913 Webster]
2. To cloud or stupefy; to render stupid with liquor; to intoxicate partially. [1913 Webster]
Epicurus seems to have had brains so muddled and confounded, that he scarce ever kept in the right way. --Bentley. [1913 Webster]
Often drunk, always muddled. --Arbuthnot. [1913 Webster]
3. To waste or misuse, as one does who is stupid or intoxicated. [R.]
[1913 Webster]
They muddle it [money] away without method or object, and without having anything to show for it. --Hazlitt. [1913 Webster]
4. To mix confusedly; to confuse; to make a mess of; as, to muddle matters; also, to perplex; to mystify. --F. W. Newman. [1913 Webster]
Source: The Collaborative International Dictionary of English v.0.44
Seems like it would work, no? I'm not so smart as to say that I knew that at the start.
You are not missing anything with regards to not hearing Coulter, Carville, etc., etc.
All the Best, Tom
"Consult the Book of Armaments"
The Weekenders wrote: So Limbaugh put together an audio montage of all the "respected journalists" and party hacks on the various talking head shows bringing up the issue of "gravitas" while referring to Bush' qualifications. He had Stephanopoulos, Eleanor Clift, Begala, Gore, and a few others all saying this exact same thing, right out of the playbook.
No surprise at all.
Back when Nancy Pelosi was being hoisted as the Dems' House Minority Leader, the word "strident" was everywhere - EVERYWHERE - as a descriptive of her style. AP, UPI, all the network news, it was as though all of them were reading from the exact same script.
Well, that's because they were.
Until someone (probably on Pelosi's staff) got around to actually looking the word up in a dictionary.
Here's what they would have found:
stri·dent ( P ) Pronunciation Key (strdnt)
adj.
Loud, harsh, grating, or shrill; discordant. See Synonyms at loud. See Synonyms at vociferous.
And within one more news cycle, the word "strident" disappeared from the vernacular of the newsies.
IRTradRU?
- Jeff Stallard
- Posts: 314
- Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2004 11:07 am
I don't think they are similar. My feet are the size of the Atlantic Ocean, and my head is the size of a tiny little ant. I don't think the problem is the photographer or that it's the same photographer taking the picture. I'm sure the photographer took a lot of good pictures, too.
But I wanted to go back to one point about the photo. I mean, this is — for 20 years, we kept hearing, "Oh, no, the media isn't liberal. They're not liberal. They're just trying to sell newspapers, just trying to sell newspapers."
"Well, you know, a hundred years of Madison Avenue advertising suggests that it's not a good idea to put an elongated funhouse photo of a girl next to — if you're trying to sell a car or toothpaste. Just a month ago, Graydon Carter, the editor of Vanity Fair said no more men on the covers. We're going to put attractive photos of females.
So apparently, Time magazine is willing to sell fewer magazines in order to run an unflattering photo of a conservative.
So much for, "they're just trying to sell newspapers."
--Ann Coulter, 4/20/2005, during an interview with Alan Colmes
(she's not happy with the photo).
http://www.foxnews.com/images/160977/0_ ... oulter.jpg
I'm remembering what Time did with the photo of OJ Simpson when he was arrested... remember how they admitted to darkening the picture to make him look more sinister? (Not that he needed any help in that department, IMO).
That link (above) is the first I've seen of this photo of Coulter. I agree with her - they're trying to make her look clown-like.
But I wanted to go back to one point about the photo. I mean, this is — for 20 years, we kept hearing, "Oh, no, the media isn't liberal. They're not liberal. They're just trying to sell newspapers, just trying to sell newspapers."
"Well, you know, a hundred years of Madison Avenue advertising suggests that it's not a good idea to put an elongated funhouse photo of a girl next to — if you're trying to sell a car or toothpaste. Just a month ago, Graydon Carter, the editor of Vanity Fair said no more men on the covers. We're going to put attractive photos of females.
So apparently, Time magazine is willing to sell fewer magazines in order to run an unflattering photo of a conservative.
So much for, "they're just trying to sell newspapers."
--Ann Coulter, 4/20/2005, during an interview with Alan Colmes
(she's not happy with the photo).
http://www.foxnews.com/images/160977/0_ ... oulter.jpg
I'm remembering what Time did with the photo of OJ Simpson when he was arrested... remember how they admitted to darkening the picture to make him look more sinister? (Not that he needed any help in that department, IMO).
That link (above) is the first I've seen of this photo of Coulter. I agree with her - they're trying to make her look clown-like.
IRTradRU?
-
- Posts: 15580
- Joined: Sun Feb 09, 2003 6:00 pm
- Please enter the next number in sequence: 1
- Location: somewhere, over the rainbow, and Ergoville, USA
I would not be happy with those shoes on my feet, either!IRTradRU? wrote:(she's not happy with the photo).
http://www.foxnews.com/images/160977/0_ ... oulter.jpg
They look like they're capable of taking a kidney out.