Coulter has a target-rich environment to work with, it’s just that her ego compels her to launch gratuitous verbal bombs from time to time — usually when one of her books is about to come out — that take the focus away from the message and put it all on the messenger (after Ann’s CPAC antics in 2007, she went on Sean Hannity’s radio show and said the people at the conference were there to see and her her more than the GOP presidential candidates anyway. Nice slice of humble there, Ann).

The fact that NBC managed to give Coulter free book publicity this time before she even said anything via the Drudge story on her being banned hopefully will give Ann the chance to actually stay on message this time and not have to toss in an unnecessary attack that completely overshadows the main issues and ends up putting the focus on conservatives having to either defend or condemn her remarks. It’s also why as I said earlier that Ann is way easier to deal with on “Red Eye” than on other shows, because she can’t say anything outrageous on there that can’t be matched or topped by Gutfeld or the rest of the guests (though they’ve yet to get her to say she’d either like to eat liberals or chain them up in her basement).

jon1979 on January 7, 2009 at 11:56 AM

So Red Eye can say outrageous things but Coulter shouldn’t?

Esthier on January 7, 2009 at 12:00 PM

No, Ann can say outrageous things, but it’s calculated to cause people to get the vapors, especially interviwers like Matt “Blanche Dubois” Lauer, which in turn leads to more publicity and book sales for her.

When she tried the same schtick her first time on “Red Eye” they upped the ante to the point of absurdity and called her bluff, so she had to be funny or make her points logically (and since Ann’s been back on the show 3-4 times since her initial appearance, she’s content with the ground rules there).

jon1979 on January 7, 2009 at 12:08 PM

Esthier on January 7, 2009 at 12:14 PM

It is, but the show doesn’t take itself seriously with its outrageousness and dares left wing sites like Olbermann’s “Countdown” or Hillary Clinton’s Media Matters® to call them on it and come off looking like liberal PC fools, the way Barbara Walters did when she attacked the show for questioning ABC’s pregnant man scoop. Or they end up looking like joyless blue noses, and the above all the angry left can’t stand not seeing itself as the hippest dudes on the block.

Ann’s outrageuosness has a far more serious tone, even when she’s calling John Edwards a faggot and takes the focus off conservative policies and onto her own words. Unlike “Red Eye” there’s a sense she’s not playing when she says those things and wants people to take them at face value. It works for her, and it works for people on the left, too, because they want swing voters to think all conservatives mirror Ann Coulter’s thinking.

On the other hand, when she goes xtreme on “Red Eye” whatever she said is likely to be followed up with a question on whether she’d like to eat Barack Obama or chain Nancy Pelosi in her basement, which in turn takes the shocking remarks to the point of absurdity and defuses any possible criticism from the left (much as Harry Smith might like to go on The Early Show and say Ann Coulter wants to eat the president-elect, even he knows there’s a point where the attacks on some statements make you come off as a humorless chump. But he and others can do that with some of her other remarks, because it’s in their interest to be outraged by what Ann says and it’s in her interest to make them outraged, which in turn makes people on the right happy and gets them to buy more of her books).

jon1979 on January 7, 2009 at 12:33 PM