I actually brought this up in the other Ann Coulter thread but it deserves its own. This woman is reprehensible as a person and should no longer call herself a writer, a columnist, and certainly never a journalist. Michael Chapman, “A Case for Impeachment,” Human Events, 5/23/97 followed by Ann Coulter, High Crimes and Misdemeanors, Regnery, 1998 page 13: ‘‘Four Democratic fundraisers have stated that former DNC Finance Chairman Marvin Rosen explicitly advocated selling access to the President...’’ Page 219: ‘‘At least four Democratic fund-raising officials have revealed that former DNC Finance Chairman Marvin Rosen explicitly advocated selling access to the president ...’’ page 13: ‘‘A DNC fundraiser told Nynex executives they would receive invitations to White House ‘coffees’ if they joined the DNC’s ‘Managing Trustees’ program and agreed to donate $100,000 ...’’ Page 219: ‘‘A DNC fundraiser told Nynex Corporation executives that they would receive invitations to White House coffees if they joined the DNC’s ‘Managing Trustees’ program and agreed to donate $100,000 ...’’ page 28: “Harry Thomason, the Hollywood TV executive famous for producing ‘Evening Shade’ and “Designing Women,’ … He is an old friend of Bill and Hillary Clinton, having first met the future President when Thomason was a high school football coach in the 1970s in Arkansas. … Thomason, meanwhile, started to spread rumors about the Travel Office.” Page 121: “Harry Thomason, the Hollywood television executive famous for producing such shows as Evening Shade and Designing Women, was a major Clinton fund-raiser. He is an old friend of Bill and Hillary Clinton, having first met the future president when Thomason was an Arkansas high school football coach in the 1970s. … Thomason spread rumors about the Travel Office.” http://www.coulterwatch.com/files/BW2-009-Plagiarism_Trap.pdf
Conservatives have no problem with folks lying about the reasons to push an agenda. Geez! Haven't you figured it out by now?
Incredible. Where's the outrage from the Right? This should put the nail in that b!tch's coffin. After all, any reporter who does such a thing for a media outlet like the Times, for example, is brought up years later in an attempt to discredit anything the Right finds painful for their side that is published by that paper. From now on, it should be Coulter the Plagiarist. Every freakin' time the b!tch comes up in a thread. Keep D&D Civil.
she is a shock jock, not an intellectual. who knows how "conservative" she really is. when it comes to hardcore "conservatives" mike savage is just a flat out crazy old man that hates everything. coulter comes off as a fake who says stuff to sound tough. she is a joke.
Are these not facts? Can anyone re-write them in a way that does not closely resemble the original expression of them (if that is even original)? And if you could, would that even be important or meaningful? These are just summary facts about some case; they are not made up stories of abandoned children of crack whores...
Did you read Mulder's post at all? Is there anything, giddy, that you can bring yourself to criticize, much less feel outrage over, from anyone on the Right, even the wacko, Far-Right loonies like Coulter? Don't you ever feel embarrassed? Keep D&D Civil.
Yes, I read Mulder's post. I feel embarassed all the time by our entire political system. How about you?
Hell yes, I do. What does that have to do with it? Honor has no meaning when it's applied to the Right? Keep D&D Civil.
About what? I couldn't give a frogs fat ass about this woman. I've never read any of her silly books. (S)he doesn't speak for me. She holds no political office. She has no power. All she's trying to do is sell books. And the more people like you she pisses off, the more books she sells. Personally, I think that's her objective. Piss people like you off so she'll sell more books. I'm not outraged. I just don't care.
Not sure if your question was rhetorical, but I really, truly, wouldn't hold my breath waiting for conservative writers or publications to be outraged. The political aspect of these writings implies that these groups or people might be less concerned about getting credit than about getting their message and agenda out to as broad an audience as possible. Heck, maybe they feel she's getting more political "mileage" out of their work in nationally syndicated columns and best-selling novels than they ever did in their think-thank newsletters. A decent analogy to the credit vs. influence paradox might be presidential speechwriters. Something tells me the Post just gave Ms. Coulter the subject for next week's column. Right or wrong, civil or crass, homegirl is always pretty quick to respond.
If I were your side, I'd save it for something important. It looks like you are woofing, but if it will make you feel better I'll do what I can to see that she is denied tenure or I'll at least take her before the student honor society....
Any bets that she will blame someone else who removed her footnotes in the publishing process? Ownership society? Methinks that she will transfer the "wealth" of this problem in a New York, 911-widow-attention-w**** minute.
