I'm not a fan of Ann Coulter---okay, that's too mild--I DETEST Ann Coulter, so I probably wouldn't be too excited to find out that USA Today had hired her to cover the Democratic National Convention and write daily dispatches for them.

Nice idea. Would they hire Michael Moore to cover the Republican National Convention? They ARE??? No way!

But USA Today squashed Coulter's column before the first one saw print. Seems they didn't "get" her first (and only) dispatch before pulling the plug.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselect...er-column_x.htm

Here's a excerpt of that column along with the USA Today's editor remarks in uppercase:

Here at the Spawn of Satan convention in Boston, conservatives are deploying a series of covert signals to identify one another, much like gay men do. My allies are the ones wearing crosses or American flags. The people sporting shirts emblazoned with the "F-word" are my opponents. Also, as always, the pretty girls and cops are on my side, most of them barely able to conceal their eye-rolling.

USA Today: EYE-ROLLING? AT WHAT?

Democrats are constantly suing and slandering police as violent, fascist racists -- with the exception of Boston's police, who'll be lauded as national heroes right up until the Democrats pack up and leave town on Friday, whereupon they'll revert to their natural state of being fascist, racist pigs.

USA Today: WHAT DEMOCRATS SUE THE POLICE? BUT THEY WON'T ACTUALLY REVERT TO BEING FASCIST PIGS, DON'T YOU MEAN THE DEMS WILL THINK THEY HAVE REVERTED TO BEING FASCIST PIGS?

http://www.humaneventsonline.com/article.php?id=4610

Hiring Coulter to cover a convention full of people she loathes is probably a neat idea to sell a few extra copies of USA Today, but I don't see the point of doing so if you're not familiar with her confrontational writing "style." Ann is a partisan without any pretense of objectivity or balance so why axe her column before giving her a fair shake? It just seems tacky, manipulative and well, kind of dumb.

I'm sure Ann will land on her back...errr...feet. She's not the type to get all weepy over losing a gig. But if you're going to hire Ann Coulter why not let her BE Ann Coulter?

Free Ann Coulter!

Did USA Today do the right thing in dropping Ann Coulter's column covering the DNC or did she get a raw deal?

Well that depends. Would her columns damage the paper (either financially or otherwise)? Most likely. The comments you provide border on libel and aren't really suitable (in terms of language, not politics) for any mainstream newspaper.

I think this is similar to the Whoopi situation where companies stupidly hired people and then later fired them for being themselves. You can't hire Ann to write for you and not expect highly biased and insulting comments.

Did USA Today do the right thing in dropping Ann Coulter's column covering the DNC or did she get a raw deal?

Yeah they did, because her article was complete garbage and it would damage any mainstream paper's reputation to run something like that. It would be the equivalent of allowing the head of the KKK to cover the NAACP convention and then printing the column on the first page, hate speech and all.



Things like this trite peice of garbage belong in the daily tabloid papers and militant conservative rags, not a mainstream paper.

Did USA Today do the right thing in dropping Ann Coulter's column covering the DNC or did she get a raw deal?

At first I thought this was a joke. And then I checked to see if this topic was in “Casual Conversation” – nope. Then I read the sources…and was amazed that it wasn’t a joke! I’ve only read snippets of Coulter’s bile (any more and I’d have to take multiple showers with Borax and a scrub brush to feel clean again); call me naïve. But, to gag my way through an entire column took some intestinal fortitude, let me tell you. I knew she was a raving lunatic, but wow…I had no idea how incredibly nasty she can be. Describing other women as “fragrant hippie chick pie wagons” – eeyikes. In addition to hating her own gender, she can’t write coherently for beans, as USA Today pointed out. She’s like the Tasmanian Devil-rabidly pounding out vitriol as she spits and froths at the mouth - you can’t understand a word out of her. So, yes, I think the paper did the right thing – rotten, stinking writing is rotten, stinking writing, regardless.

Wow, a conservative let go from a job because of something she said? Wait didn't we have a thread about this? Oh, right that was the other side of the coin.
I have a hard time thinking that USA Today had never read Ann Coulter before and weren't familiar with her work, so it begs the question for me, who pressured them to pull the column??


Or the hiring the NAACP to cover the Republican convention. Funny how free speech seems to work only one way.........


Reeeal classy.

Not even close to the same thing DTOM, but nice try. There were plenty of conservative journalists hired to cover the convention. In fact, on one of the stations there were some conservtatives grilling the other side pretty hard, but they didn't resort to these kinds of tactics. I want to say it was PBS but I can't remember. They used those pesky things we call facts.

Now I admit I'm not intimately familiar with the business practices of newspapers, but I think I can make some pretty educated guesses and perhaps someone like nighttimer can back me up. I'm sure that the people that approached Coulter about the convention expected her to at least write a column that had some basis in reality and didn't amount to nothing more than name calling. They might have wanted the conservative viewpoint and expected her to have enough professional courtesy to remain civil.

I would guess that her editor, wisely, did not run the article because the paper might be held liable for libel based on some of the remarks in there. Coulter didn't perform her job unlike Ronstadt DTOM. There is a big difference. Her article was canned not because of her politics, it wasn't run because it was complete garbage and no editor (conservtative or not) worth his salt would allow that to be printed. She failed to produce a deliverable which satisifed the conditions of her employment.

USA Today has every right to hire and fire her for whatever reasons they choose. That's how it works. Personally, I don't have a clue on why they hired her for this in the first place. They should have known their girlie boy editors wouldn't be able to handle her.

Well, Ronstadt was hired to sing, and she sang. Coulter was hired to write an article and she wrote. She wasn't hired to print an article, but to write one.
There's certainly a lot of subjective words towards Coulter. Fair enough if you don't like her, but it's like saying Ronstadts singing is complete garbage and no Las Vegas lounge worth their salt should let her appear.


I'd sure like to see the terms of her contract, have it on you perchance? I'm willing to bet that she was even paid in full, as I'm of the opinion that she was hired to write, not publish.

I’ll give her credit, she can turn a phrase. It’s a shame her work focuses on so much out right hate.

USA Today was only doing what any employer has the right to do, hire some one, determine that their work isn’t a fit and summarily dismiss them.

I don't have her contract, but I have common sense. There is something called ethics in journalism, and part of that is not writing complete fiction and passing it off as news. There is also a good chance the paper could have caught a lawsuit if that was printed.

The comparison you make to Ronstadt doesn't work. To make that comparison Ronstadt would ahve had to show up on stage drunk and stoned and then she would have had to sing all of her songs off key and off tempo.

In both cases she "sung her songs", but there is a big difference there. I would hope that you could see the same difference between what Coulter turned out and what she could have turned out. There are probably some legitimate criticisms she could have made about the convention, some people here on AD have made them - intelligently and articulately. Instead she wrote an article containing the most vile kinds of name-calling and absolute fictions and lunatic ravings.

They wanted her to be controversial, but I guess she didn't stir up things in the polite way they had intended. In Fahrenheit 9/11, Moore didn't come anywhere close to calling Bush a "spawn of satan." Sure, he lied, and left out tons of contrary information, but he was a bit more subtle in his approach. On the other hand, Coulter says things like:

Much like Michael Moore, Coulter does the right no favors. Its better for her to be replaced by someone able present themselves as something other than a raving child. I hope they do the same to Moore.

Works for me. Again, you're being subjective. You may not Coulter at the same level as don't like Ronstadt. I may think Linda did sing like she was drunk and stoned, it really has no bearing either way, as it opinion.
USA Today was well in their rights to not print her article if they didn't want to. I fully support that. Just as I support the Aladdin's right to fire Ronstadt. We have already hashed out personal opinion, likes and dislikes of the Ronstadt affair, and the same standards apply here.


Ahhh, but there's the rub. She didn't pass it off as news. She is an Op-Ed writer. She writes opinion. As I find myself entertained by her columns, I can say with some certainty that this one was not really any different than the majority of her work.


I read and hear conservatives called that on a daily basis. It's not constructive, but then again speech is only free if you agree with Liberals, right?

Did USA Today do the right thing in dropping Ann Coulter's column covering the DNC or did she get a raw deal?

Raw deal. As others noted USA Today should know what they were getting into. Assuming they knew Coulter's aggressive partisanship I have to ask: when has she ever been known for coherent writing? Hiring Moore and Coulter to cover the opposing party's convention begs for a special kind of vitriol in an attempt to one-up each other. Maybe M.M.'s column will sound just as addled as Coulter's.

Although the column reads like an SNL skit and may be good enough for a purple prose nomination it's a shame USA Today reneged on the deal. The only effect columnists like Coulter can have on my party is a positive one. If nothing else she's good for a laugh and a lesson in writing.



He meant claws.

I agree with aquilla, USA Today should have read her books and columns more closely. Ann Coulter is vicious, cutting, and often funny as hell, but not what USA today wants on its pages. I've never seen them write anything edgy.

Plus, just like the USA Today editor, lots of people don't get sarcasm, especially when doled out like she does. This is not a slam at anyone, most people wouldn't get liberal sarcasm either. Plus, in this column she was trying way too hard, probably trying to get every single bullet into one article since it was a first chance at this big of an audience.


Just a factual point, as becominghuman quoted out of context and some have now responded. (illustrating my point on sarcasm) She was saying that democrats consider police to be fascist, racist pigs, which is factual in Al Sharpton's case, as she illustrates in the very column. I suppose she could have also said that democrats incite riots that kill people, since Sharpton has also done that, but maybe she was toning it down here

So, by that logic, Jayson Blair should never have been fired from the NY Times; after all, they asked him to write-he wrote...never mind that pesky little detail of whether or not what he wrote were actually HIS words...by God, he wrote!

He was also a by god REPORTER. He tried to pass something off as news that wasn't. Why are people trying to silence Coulter? I don't understand the 'standards of convenience' here.
And I have said, sigh, that USA Today had every right to fire her. I'm quite sure I'm typing in english here.

I have no idea why USA Today hired Ann Coulter in the first place, but I can understand why they didn't want to print her article. It's nothing more than a lengthy ad-hominem attack. I understand that it's an op-ed piece, but it lacks class and seems to have no other purpose than to inflame. Personally, I find that unappealing whether it comes from the mouths of liberals or conservatives. Perhaps the editors at USA Today felt that their audience would react in the same manner.

Was it stupid of USA Today to hire Ann Coulter if they weren't looking for that type of article? Yeah. Probably, but I can't say that she got a raw deal. I'm assuming that they both signed a contract regarding the terms of her service, and as long as both parties follow through with the contract, it doesn't matter if they print her work or not.

People like Ann Coulter and Michael Moore will always have an outlet, because there will always be someone who appreciates their style of communication. This doesn't seem like much of an issue to me.

Your context doesn't change the shrewdness of the assault, which was what my point was based around anyway. If you need more:


The second one reminds me of middle school were all the boys were proclaiming that chicks of the rival school were ugly.

My point? Ann Coulter uses what many would consider childish insults and snips.

This is her goal exactly. Now we are in for a whole slew of"The Liberal media is so unfair" Garbage. Their was no way they could print that and she knew it. But it now gives them the perfect excuse for

Which of course justifies the whole thing. Conservatives can spew forth bile because some Liberals do. Great reasoning there DTOM. Just remember sticks and stones......

Every radio show Hannity monkey wannabe will chirp on this until even their most ardent supporters puke.


Personally Moore and Coulter should both be bricked up in a cave somewhere. Their level of hate is so vile as to be almost literally poisonous upon contact.
Merely look at their appearance and see their true self. One, an ever widening bloated fool and the others whose hatred has begun to carve itself in the lines of her face.

The constant level of maturity in todays discourse makes me often beleive that we are so very deserving of allmost every ill infecting our society today.
and the best response mustered by both sides was learned in kindergarden.
you R 2
Nuh Uh!
Uh HUH!
NO! u R!
I'm gonna tell!
ur a jerky head
Nuh Uh!
Uh HUH!
NO! u R!
Nuh Uh!
Uh HUH!
NO! u R!

Ah the founders would be so proud.

All totally true. You should read the books.
I still wonder what the heck they were thinking in hiring her. USA Today is the safest, most milquetoast paper around most of the time. I hear the sound of one head rolling in their newsroom.

christopher, here's an ironic Coulter quote for you from Slander

I'm with Hugo on this one. USA Today not knowing what they were getting when they hired Coulter is like SlimFast not knowing what they were getting when they hired Whoopi Goldberg. It's absurd that any of the parties involved were surprised by supremely predictable behavior.

Perhaps, though, USA Today was more unhappy than they would have been if Coulter hadn't failed to do her job. She was hired to write about the Democratic National Convention. She didn't. In a thousand word piece, she mentioned the names of seven people who would be speaking. The rest - all the rest - was a typical venomous diatribe which would have got her banned from America's Debate in roughly thirty seconds - and much of it was demonstrably false, at that.

Did USA Today have the right to pull her piece? Sure - just as SlimFast had the right to terminate Goldberg's contract. Should they have expected this, though? Hello - Earth to USA Today - come in please. Lie down with dogs and you're gonna get up with fleas...

I don't get this attitude of that the USA Today should have known better. Come on, this is not the "very liberal guy" that just can't see it. I read this article, has any one else. I heard this same logic when talking about Rush Limbaugh and the NFL. But I could agree, there. You are on live TV and anything can come out of Rush's mouth. But this isn't the case with Ann Coulter. USA today should know she would bash Democrats, but they should still expect some quality in this bashing. She is a best-selling author right?? She does know how to do a little research, right?? She could have made a rebuttal of one statement given, right?? I mean is there any one here that thinks that article took more than 2 hours?? She didn't even use spell check

W've?? Come on, if they dropped her because she wasn't objective, then I would agree with some people here. But if they tell her that her work is unacceptable for a professional writer, redo it... and she says no, w've got to understand that USA Today could not expect this. Look at her first sentence, just look at it!!



huh..... USA Today should have expected this?? No they should have expected her to be confrontational against the Dems, but they should still expect a level of professionalism. They may read her books, but they also know that those books is designed for a certain audience, and still should expect that she can write something suitable for a national newspaper....she couldn't or as someone suggested. She purposefully botched this job so that conservatives can say.... "See liberals are trying to shut conservatives up, too."

DTOM

Come on , man. Is this truly a good comparison to you of what we were talking about in the other thread?? I recognize your right to have an opinion and I recognize that mine is an opinion as well, but possibly could you find a better comparison.

If liberals had started to demand their money back for their subscriptions to USA Today, just because they found out Ann Coulter was going to write for the
USA Today,
I'd agree with you.

If USA Today had fired Ann Coulter because of the mounting pressure of boycotting liberals...
I'd agree with you.

If USA Today fired Ann Coulter cause she made a comment about Senator Kerry in a Washington Times article...guess what???
I'd agree with you.

But because they fired her cause she didn't do her job, which was to write a column(s) about the convention.
This I can not do...please explain your opinion of how this compares to Rosdant...or whatever her name is..

What I find most distressing about this whole episode is the fact that USA Today, a newspaper largely blamed for its flash and scanty, snappy news content, would hire an agent provocateur like Ann Coulter (and Michael Moore) to cover a national politicial convention. This isn't news, this is entertainment impersonating news. Coulter is trained as a lawyer, not a journalist. Moore is a filmmaker, not a journalist. They are both partisans with pre-determined viewpoints.

This isn't journalism. This is cabaret.

Ann Coulter has her fans. I'm not one of them. But if you're going to hire her and then fire her because her "reporting" doesn't fit the high standards of USA Today, I have to question competency of the doofus that thought this was a good idea in the first place.

Political conventions long ago were drained of any suspense, excitement, spontaneity or news. There are more reporters at the convention than delegates. They're interviewing each other! There's NOTHING to write about except Teresa Kerry telling some bozo to "shove it.' That's all the news that's fit to print in two days of a carefully choreographed convention.

So USA Today, in their infinite stupidity, decided to send Ann Coulter to the last place on Earth she'd be welcome to spice things up.. They tried a "fish out of water" scenario and Coulter turned in a lazily written piece. No serious thought. No real analysis. No content. Just a series of one-liners looking for a punchline. But to pull the plug on her after one false start just smacks of a publicity stunt.

I should call USA Today and beg them to send me to the Republican National Convention. I won't charge them as much as Coulter and I'll write some actual stories!

But it's just more of the dumbing down of the American mind and the slow dying death of the newspaper. Don't bore us with a serious examination of complex issues. Just keep us entertained. Maybe we won't notice how totally worthless the whole fiasco really is.

I have only one question for those defending Coulter: Have you read what she wrote? Do you honestly want this hysterical mean spirited idiocy to be presented as a representation of your views? Ann Coulter makes conservatives look worse than an army of Michael Moore's working full time could possible hope to.
Want to present conservatives as mean spirited bigots, just quote Coulter:

And where does skanky, anorexic, heroin addict looking Ann Coulter get off criticizing the appearance of other women?

I would think conservative would be hoping for Coulter to be silenced.

I'm reminded of the Aesop's Fable of the Frog and the Scorpion.

What did USA Today expect to happen?

Now, if they had several other reporters writing op-ed pieces on the DNC, Coulter's piece could be just seen as a satirical take on things. We could argue about how funny or how effective (or offensive) here satire might be, but in essence her place would be within the realm of comedy rather than the realm of journalism, which is not in itself a bad thing.

If however, she was the only topline view of the convention, not only are USA Today dumb for hiring someone who was practially bound to produce something like what she actually did, they're even dumber for treating a serious news event in such a glib and half-hearted way. And the same will apply to the Republican convention if & when Michael Moore writes his op-ed piece (though I find it hard to beleive he will be quite so abstracted from actual goings on - his style is more to rant in reaction to specific events than just rant).

I read upward of two newspapers on a daily basis, it is a habit I picked up in my youth. My exposure to USA Today is usually limited to the following scenario. I am sitting in a restaurant drinking a cup of coffee, and someone has left a copy behind. As their crossword puzzles are usually more interesting than the restaurant place-mats, I pick it up and work the puzzle. Then I start to scan the rest of it. Nope, I can't afford my own island, I'm not looking for a job in international sales, etc., so I pass on the want ads. I'm from Michigan, and I'm not likely to find either of the Detroit Feline ball teams featured in the sports section. Most of the front page contents were already covered on CNN before I left the house...


I would expect an editor to read a sample of a writer's published work before hiring the writer. If this truly is typical of Ann Coulter's (I haven't had the occasion to read anything she has previously written.) published writing, I would have to believe that the editor that hired her to write for USA Today has some 'splaining to do. If I wanted to read a story on the Spawn of Satan convention, I would probably peruse the story in The Midnight Sun while standing in line at the grocery store checkout. What I couldn't read through the wire rack holding it for display probably wouldn't have a serious effect on my future anyway.

USA Today has every right to fire someone hired to cover a four day story. She probably has an agent who drafted an ironclad contract, and she most likely got paid. If they fired her without publishing her stories, she likely won't be asked to cover the Democratic convention for them again in four years. USA Today also has the right to tell the editor who hired Coulter and Moore, "In the future, you can recommend that we hire someone, but the final decision will have to be made by someone else. By the way, how much did you have to drink that day?"

Grendel72, If you are going to call someone mean-spirited, you may wish to refrain from also calling them skanky, anorexic, heroin addict looking . Just a suggestion As for the quote below, of the 3 outrageous things said, the fiirst 2 were our nation's policy by the end of the week that she said it. I'm just sayin'



And as I said above, I still blame USA Today for hiring her. While this column was not great, it is in her style, so caveat emptor.

She wasn't representing your views nor mine. She would have been representing hers.. Thats like saying that all dems agree with Micheal Moore.. Ok OK bad example.. I can't wait to see what Micheal Moore writes about the Rep convention...

That being said:

Did USA Today do the right thing in dropping Ann Coulter's column covering the DNC or did she get a raw deal?


USA Today has the right to fire anyone they want. They can get away with firing Anne Coulter because her beliefs don't fall into that of their core reader. I do think she got a raw deal, but reading what she wrote, I assume she expected this. I don't feel bad for her, just like I don't feel bad for Ronstadt. The only diffrence between Rondstadt and Coulter is: Ronstadt was paid for her singing not her personal opinions and Anne Coulter was hired for her Personal Opinions and not her singing. Thank God we haven't had to hear her sing...

The horse-faced mega-gammed one got a raw deal. The paper led her on that she might have some value as a cottage cheese journalist with ketchup and vinegar drizzled on top, but no. Nothing but putrid road kill. So to avoid being banned from eateries across the nation, out with the stench.

Her fiscal failure to make dollar one at the gig testifies to her draw and appeal. At least Linda and Michael are making money hands over fists while Ann retreats into her barby doll fantasies that maybe she might be pretty and not just meat on the hook, titillating old rich married white guys taking Viagra and preaching Jesus.

All might not be lost though. Maybe she had a drop-dead clause in the contract (minimum payment for minimum work). So maybe she made enough to get a leg waxing.

And I'm sure the hair removal routine is nothing new to her. After all, when you have a face that would sink a fleet, you gotta capitalize on other assets.

Maybe she should hang around Fox News in case Rupert Murdock needs a waxing. He probably tips pretty well, Ann. And paper bags are cheap. The overhead would be nothing.

To the little insecure girl inside, I'm sorry. Pandering to Daddy figures is dangerous stuff. Expect to be abused regularly, Ann. Expect that abuse to come until you get up off your knees and become a real woman, one who has no need for makeup or Daddy.

As nighttimer posted one of the more "adult" responses here to this issue, I think it's worth pointing out that what he says is something worth discussing here. More-so than discussing Coulter's personal grooming habits or looks.

USA Today had to have known that she was going to be harsh. Yes, certainly she went over the line, but what was the point of hiring her in the first place, except to manufacture "buzz" for USA Today? And to sell some newspapers to travelers (who are the prime readers for the newspaper) who are more conservative and don't want the D convention to dominate four days of news cycles.

Should newspapers manufacture their own "buzz" this way? I don't think so, but I can see how it would sell newspapers, which is really the bottom line for most editors at most newspapers.

I don't read USA TODAY, nor have I read anything by Ann Coulter. After watching her being interviewed on CNN sometime ago, I really wasn't interested. But this thread with its link was a real eye-opener, and it helped me appreciate Molly Ivins even more.

I wonder how many posts this Ann Coulter would have made here on AD before she was BANNED. There is nothing in her rant to indicate that she was trained as an attorney (which one poster mentioned) or that she has any journalistic talent. The only thing that remains is that her writing must be entertaining to somebody.

Yes, Coulter was evidently being herself writing this piece. But I would contend that when a newspaper hires someone to write an op-ed piece, it is because they expect a certain quality of work, not merely unsubstantiated tripe.

USA TODAY has my respect for rejecting what Ann Coulter submitted as "work product."

I totally agree Paladin Elspeth. Ann Coulter's article is filled with nothing but liberal bashing and harsh drivel to the highest degree. But I'm not really that surprised as I found that out years ago what her mindset is like when I attempted to read her book "Treason." No wonder where less informed conservatives get their almost unreasonable rage towards liberals!

I fully respect USA Today for not publishing this garbage. Alternate views are well and good, but her's are way out in the fields of insanity!

Did Anne Coulter steal someone elses words? Did she misrepresent a group of people? I read the article and don't remember her saying she is speaking for anyone. It seemed like an opinion piece to me.. Her opinion, which she was asked to give.




Hmmmmm.. Conservative rage.... The liberals are the ones calling names.



Thats funny.. I feel the same about Micheal Moore. I bet that his articles are just as bad but make it to the paper..

Did USA Today do the right thing in dropping Ann Coulter's column covering the DNC or did she get a raw deal?
It was the right thing. After reading her column from the web site, I found it to be even less deserving of Journalistic review than her previous works. She at least makes arguments in some of those. This column was littered with ad-hominem attacks and vitriol laden labels on people. It wasn't contributing to anything. And if Michael Moore submitted the like at the RNC, I would have the same opinion. US Today was well within its right to reject that submission.

Doc

The difference being that the women at the DNC didn't raise the issue by belittling anyone's appearance and claiming to be "pretty girls".
Nope, actually we never killed their leaders- Osama Bin Ladin is still free as a bird.

My point is that Coulter does not represent conservatives, when she is criticised it is for her outrageous bigotry not because she is a conservative. When conservatives attempt to portray hateful bigots like Coulter and Michael savage as being martyrs of free speech put down for expressing conservative views they elevate the hateful bigoted comments these people make to the level of being the center of conservative thought. Nobody is being silenced for expressing the view that we need a smaller government, or that people shouldn't rely on the government to protect them from everything- they are being held accountable for making rude, racist, homophobic statements, none of which are representative of conservatism as I know it.

Looks like there's a lot of speculating going on here, so I'll add my own too.

Here's what I think happened. USA Today says to Coulter, "We want someone to spice this up a bit, we'll give you "some" lee-way, but keep it toned down a bit".

So, Coulter takes the job knowing full well she's not going to hold back. As far as she's concerned, she doesn't need the money, she's a successful lawyer and a New York's Best Selling author. What's the worst that could happen? She gets some publicity for free? Bad publicity is good publicity, remember?

So, what happened? She gets fired from USA Today and we're all sitting at home/work typing up a storm about the situation.

I see the same thing happening to Michael Moore, you all know he's not going to hold back either. He'll probably start off with something mild, but the guy has one heck of a temper, he'll be foaming at the mouth by the time he's done and will probably have slipped in a few "see? this is why you should go see my movie" comments to wrap it all up.

Again, we'll be sitting here typing away about Michael Moore and someone will probably mention F9/11 and someone will probably go rent/buy it that night.

Heck, I wouldn't be surprised if Coulter/Moore paid USA Today.....

Actually, they aren't. Moore, as grandstanding and spot-light hogging as he is, does attempt to present a case in a somewhat civil manner.

Coulter is downright nasty. The things she says are not classy or fit to be published in a national newspaper like USAToday--as was their decision to make, and they did. Their are many right-wing columnists that make their point very well without resorting to the type of ranting that Coulter does. William Safire's brilliant work for the New York Times comes to mind, as does Charles Krauthammer. The point is--Coulter was not silenced for her opinion but for her crude remarks--the one about women is wholly unacceptable to the people that run USAToday.

Coulter has an audience, but that audience is not necesarrily those who read USAToday.