Ann Coulter is a racist, and for Sean Hannity and Bill O'Reilly

[Eric J in MN]

continue to regularly have her on their shows is condoning racism.

http://www.anncoulter.com/cgi-local/printer_friendly.cgi?article=43

"Press passes can't be that hard to come by if the White House allows that old Arab Helen Thomas to sit within yards of the president."

-Ann Coulter, February 23, 2005

Unless Fox News stops regularly turning to Ann Coulter for commentary, Fox News condones racism.

[Stop_the_War]

1. She's also sexist against women n/t

[sakabatou]

22. Well that makes sense... i think

Maybe it's because she's a man, baby!

[baldguy]

2. Oh, is it a crime to be an Arab now?

When do we start making them wear armbands with a yellow crescent on them?

[bunkerbuster1]

34. Ann's wanted their "leaders" dead for years.

She's always been openly anti-Arab. This is hardly anything new.

That said, I'm happy to flog this if we can get some mileage out of it.

[Stop_the_War]

3. I hate Ann Coulter.

[Eric J in MN]

4. Let's see if Fox News cares about the "old Arab" remark (nt)

nt

[sportndandy]

5. Ann Coulter is a man, Baby!

[imenja]

8. sexism is alive and well on DU

I'm tired of men with absolutely nothing to say attacking women based on their gender. When you don't like what Coulter says, make that clear. Don't rely on your Neanderthal views of women to substitute for political commentary.

It's especially interesting that you reply to Coulter's racist remark with your own expression of prejudice.

[BuyingThyme]

11. Lighten up.

People attack Ann Coulter because she's a woods beast, not because she's a woman.

The "she's a man, baby" business is a joke -- it's from a movie.

Lighten up. Watch a funny movie. Make a joke.

[imenja]

25. do have an array of racist jokes as well?

I will not lighten up. The comments are sexist and deserved to be called what they are. Now, you may say you don't care how much you insult women, but when you defend such comments you do so. Just as frat boys who dress in black face reveal insult African Americans.

[BuyingThyme]

29. If the remark is sexist, it's sexist towards men. (Obviously.)

I'd love to hear your explanation as to how likening a woods beast to a man is sexist towards women. It just doesn't make sense.

And yes, black-face was intended to denigrate black people. But there are many great jokes about race. Making jokes about race is not a symptom of racism -- it's a way of celebrating our differences. There's a BIG difference between racial and racist.

By the way, it's just amazing that you would use racism in a straw-man defense of Ann Coulter. ...Now that's irony.

[imenja]

36. see post 28

Bigotry is wrong, no matter who the speaker or the target. Sexism is the same as racism. Neither is acceptable. As a woman, I am personally offended by the continual misogyny on this website.

[atre]

62. Self-delete

Replied to wrong post.

[elshiva]

51. Which movie is that line from?

She could be a man, maybe? But she is definitely a racist.

[chicagojoe]

18. OK. Coulter is a cavewoman. A diseased whore of a cavewoman.

[Name removed]

27. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[d_b]

31. That is correct.

[Name removed]

21. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[imenja]

26. are jokes about blacks okay?

Arabs, Jews, Asians, people with Aids? What other forms of prejudice do you find humorous. Shall we devise a series of racist jokes to insult Rice or Powell? Is that acceptable? For one, it says nothing other that the person who makes such comments is a misogynist. Secondly, it's not remotely funny. If you want to make bigoted jokes, they should at least be remotely funny.


Prejudice and sexism are wrong, and I'm sick of it. If you continue to engage in such comments, it demonstrates a deep seeded antipathy for women generally. I am telling you here and now that it is offensive and unacceptable. Now if you do not care how much of a bigot you are, that is your problem. But when I see this stuff I call people on it.

[BuyingThyme]

47. Yes, many jokes about all of these people are absolutely wonderful.

Just ask 'em.

Equivocating racial jokes and racist jokes is absurd, just as equivocating sex-based jokes and sexist jokes is absurd.

You can't go from the word 'joke' the the word 'prejudice' without telling us how you got there.

What you're doing is known as equivocation. It's a fallacy. It's a failure of debate.

[Selteri]

48. I think you proved my point without a shadow of a doubt.

The phase 'get over yourself' seems to apply strongly here. You just attacked and slandered me and called me a bigot.

If you really think I'm sexist or racist you really need to work a lot on many other issues that you seem to be willing to discuss.

First a POKE is not a JOKE, they only sound alike, perhaps I should use the term barb, jab or the like to clarify since you seem to have been unable too differentiate already.

Ann Coulter is a sexist, against women, and a racist. She has public ally made statements that confirm that solidly.

Jokes, which you find so insulting, are a part of the human condition, it does not automatically infer of confer the statement of racism or sexism.

For instance, you have no way to tell if I'm a male of a female. Yet, I can make jokes about both genders.

Here are some intentionally offensive ones to assist in the development of a skin.

How do you tell a man is thinking? His pants get tight.

How do you tell a woman is thinking? She tells you about it.

See, they're both of an offensive nature, yet neither are typed with any malice, nor were they given any real thought.

Here, I'll go further, I'm an American, so I'll tell a nice offensive American Joke.

How do you tell an American has been thinking? ?they're invading another country.

Or this since I've got German and French Heritage.

How does a German get to Paris? Right through Belgium.

Again, no malice or nastiness intended behind it, yet it is still an offensive joke to any Parisian or many French people.

Jokes are very often intended to attempt to broach a serious subject with humor to lower tension. Getting offended solves nothing.

It's the people who state things like "How did they let an Arab into the white house?" like Ann - Hatemongers Not-anonymous member - Coulter are the real problem and often enough they are the first ones to be offended and claim prejudicial or sexist intentions.

As I said in my last post, which was ignored quite completely, we need to stop attacking each other and band together to protect our rights, liberties and freedoms.

Yes, freedom of speech gives me the right to be able to make jokes that many people find offensive, but that is the cost of free speech.

One more time we need to stop attacking each other and band together to protect our rights, liberties and freedoms. Repeat that a few more times, then flame me again.

(As a note - The original post where someone called her a 'man baby' is just a mimicking of the Austin Powers Movie, I sincerely doubt it was meant as more of a jab since it seemed more that it was parroting than a well thought out argument to claim that Ann Coulter is such. Perhaps it might be better to aim the ire at Ann Coulter for her sexist comments and suggestions that women should resume a role similar to that of the 1950s and before where women were little more than objects or toys in far too many people's viewpoints.

Also - It is insulting to call be a bigot for not agreeing with you, would you like me to refer to you as a small minded evolutionary backstop?)

[imenja]

49. freedom of the speech gives you every right

to make any simple-minded comment you like, but a sexist comment is just that, sexist. Whether you are a man or a woman doesn't change that (though I very much doubt you are a woman). If you have criticisms of Coulter, make them plain.

Because you claim to be liberal does not make your comments any less offensive. I am telling you here and now that I find them, and others like them, tremendously offensive. You have said you do not care, which means you are now deliberately supporting sexist idea. Bigotry is experienced by the target of the remarks. It need not be be intentional to have real consequences. African-Americans find the confederate flag any less racist because White Southerners imagine it relates to Southern identity rather than it's actual legacy of a deliberate symbol to resistance to Civil Rights and integration. Women are continually attacked based on appearance or femininity rather than their ideas. That is a reflection of a sexist culture which you have absorbed to the point where you have no awareness or concerns about your language. You apparently choose to insult people based on race or gender, rather than saying anything thoughtful or even remotely funny about what makes Coulter's comments ridiculous. When you do so, you insult all women. You make clear
your assumptions concerning certain standards of femininity which apparently Coulter and, for the Republicans, Hillary Clinton defy.

If you want to promote unity, you need to stop treating women as less than men. You speak disparagingly of women and other groups, yet you somehow claim assume you deserve uncritical support regardless of the contempt you demonstrate for them? If you version of progressivism means women should be subject to criticism based on our appearance and gender rather that their ideas or actions, that is not an inclusive conception of the Democratic party. You want me to get over YOUR sexism? No. I refuse to accept your efforts to relegate me and those of my gender to second-class citizenship.

[Maine-ah]

42. I don't think people on DU post against Coulter

because she's a woman, it's because she spews nothing but hatred. I think she is the most vile person, and I can't wait to see the day when she's pulled from her platform and is shown to the world what she really is. Oh, I'm a woman, thought you might like to know that too.

[Runcible Spoon]

58. I agree. Let's call Coulter for what "it" is....

a subhuman specimen who has managed to devolve into another species...

[bloom]

24. please read this

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x3174805


thanks

[imenja]

28. the comments don't stem from a genuine belief she is transgendered

even if they did, how would that be at all pertinent to what she says? Rather, these men see Ann Coulter as behaving in ways women should not. She is forceful and acerbic in her comments, beliefs that none of us on DU find acceptable. Yet rather than challenging what she says, as they do for Scarborough, O'Reilly, and others, they attack her femininity itself. The sentiment is IDENTICAL to the animosity against Hillary Clinton. Political differences become a pretext for displaying misogyny. They reflect the view that women should not forcefully express opinions or, in the case of Senator Clinton, hold positions of power. The comments are at their root bigoted.

[Stop_the_War]

33. Ann Coulter is sexist against women.

[imenja]

35. Does that somehow justify misogyny on DU?

I'm not interested in defending anything Coulter says. Rather, I wish to point out the deep-seeded sexism evident here on DU. You guys should know better. And men here should at least have the decency to stop trying to justify their bigotry.

Assuming you are right that Coulter is sexist, does that somehow justify misogyny here on DU? Such comments offend women as a group, not simply Coulter. Just as racist jokes about Powell or Rice are insulting to all African-Americans.

[gonefishing]

41. For what its worth (if anything) I agree with you.

I have never been offended by the Ann Coulter jokes on this forum. Some times I have even laughed. However, I am firm believer that a joke that offends one person is not funny.

[imenja]

52. thanks

All I'm asking is people keep their contents to her ideas and character rather than her gender. There have been similar posts about the size of Laura Bush's ass, Condi Rice's face, etc.... None of that in anyway relates to the problems the Right poses. Men are critiqued on ideas, women on appearance and femininity. I ask that the standard for criticism be the same, regardless of gender or race.

[bloom]

38. I liked the post

because it illustrates how attacking AC in that manner insults people besides AC.

I agree with you and I don't like the way it can seem like the female gender is open to attack.

(But AC does attack women (as a gender) herself - so she is in no way a feminist).

[BuyingThyme]

43. Any way you cut this argument, the assumption/conclusion is that

men are evil.

But why cut this argument any more. Somebody made a very Innocent joke, and somebody else decided to turn the joke into a crusade against women. It clearly was not.

How about, "Ann Coulter is a woman, baby."

Oh, wait...That too would be offensive to women.

Does anybody have a joke about Ann Coulter that is not offensive to all women?

Of course not, because if you make any joke about Ann Coulter, you do so because she's a woman, not because she's an evil monster. Who would make jokes about evil monsters when there are so many women out there just begging to be oppressed?

[imenja]

50. I never said all men are evil

but when you attack women based on appearance or hegemonic notions of femininity, you behave in a sexist manner. Here's a radical idea. You could actually say something substantive. You could comment on the CONTENT of her ideas rather than using her as an excuse to express your contempt for women.

This comment of yours: "Who would make jokes about evil monsters when there are so many women out there just begging to be oppressed?" I have no idea what that means. Are you suggesting that "women begging to be oppressed" justifies your sexist behavior? If you are concerned about being seen as evil, offensive, or sexist, I'd suggest doing some serious rethinking.

[Name removed]

54. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[imenja]

61. the form your attack takes is gendered

When you develop insults that put her femininity in question (Man Coulter) all you reveal is your own retrograde view of women. You say nothing about the illogic of Coulter's ideas themselves. Make all the attacks you want based on the content of her ideas. But when you attack the femininity or appearance of a woman, you insult all women and thus behave in a sexist manner. What I am suggesting is that you use the same criteria for critiquing women that you would for a man.

If you find your cues on how to treat women from Hollywood movies or the media, you will inevitably behave in unjust ways. We live in a culture that objectifies women. Pointing to Austin Powers as your inspiration hardly absolves you from complicity in perpetuating such views. It is incumbent upon thinking people to critique those media images rather than repeat them.

I can't convince you to behave in a non-sexist manner. All I can do is point out that your words are offensive. It's for you to decide if you care enough about basic notions of equality to hold men and women to the same standard.

[BuyingThyme]

64. Joe McCarthy would be proud.

I haven't made any gender-based attacks, but you continue to prove my point. You've resorted to lying, so I really don't have anything to respond to here.

And, by the way, Austin Powers was your inspiration, not mine. I have never used the joke, nor have I used it to attack others (as you did).

But I have an assignment for you. Try to differentiate between your approach to what you call 'misogyny' and Joe McCarthy's approach to what he called "communism."

Can you find any differences? Is the damage you're trying to inflict any less significant than the damage he was trying to inflict? Are you using any fallacies that he did not use, and are your falsehoods constructed with any less misdirected rage?

Ask yourself.

Is Austin Powers the centerpiece of your world view?

[imenja]

65. The first amendment

You mentioned an Austin Powers joke. Since I have never seen the film, I could hardly evoke a reference to it.

Your freedom of speech allows you to voice every prejudiced remark you would like, just as it did for Strom Thermond, George Wallace, and Bobby Riggs. What is most concerning to me is that you simply do not care about the prejudicial nature of your language. To equate me to Joe McCarthy because I suggest that you reflect on the gendered nature of your posts is disturbing indeed. You obviously do not value principles of equality. That is fundamentally a problem of your own conscience, but sadly you contribute to the most common and thoughtless sort of remarks that pervade our public life and have the effect of reducing women to a subordinate status. As Michel Foucault points out, language is power. You have chosen to continue to employ language which enforces patriarchy and undermines equality.
As I noted before, I can't force you to grow a conscience. Only you can decide what your own values are. I am saddened that you have decided that equality should not be among them.

[Name removed]

70. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[imenja]

72. I'm going to try to explain this one more time

and I hope you make an effort to try to understand my point here.

We live in a society where racism and sexism prevail. Despite great advances since the 1960s, our society still promotes white male patriarchy in politics, economics, and social and cultural values. Media images and words are part of that culture. Television and movies increasingly have portrayed women as sexual images as a backlash to the women's movement. One would think such cultural images would evolve, but they instead have moved backward. If you thinks of strong female characters in the Hollywood movies of the 1930s, you will see that media images of women today are far more objectified. The fast talking dame of the 1930s, Rosalind Russel in "His Girl Friday" or Myrna Loy in her many pictures with William Powell, have been replaced by weaker, sexualized images: Baywatch and Charlie's Angels, for example. Some strong female characters remain, but in an overall sense, the roles have weakened. Many of the actresses from Hollywood's Golden Age, like Kate Hepburn, have discussed openly these changes, and academics have analyzed such cultural trends.

As members of a society structured around inequality, we all absorb those ideas. And we tend to reflect them in our actions and choice of language. In order to promote equality, we need to think critically about our own role in this system: how we treat women and people of color, and the particular language and jokes we choose to tell or defend. None of us are exempt from such influences. I remember with great embarrassment an incident some ten years ago when I went up to an African-American man in an airport assuming he worked there. He, like myself, was a passenger. I realized instantly that it was a fundamentally racist action on my part, though I certainly intended no such insult. The man was surely aware of the culturally racist influences that underlay my assumption about his position at the airport. Because I reflected on what I did, I learned from my mistake and have never repeated it. If I had instead justified my behavior and told myself I had not intended harm, rather than critically evaluating my actions, I surely would have repeated that racist behavior.

When one uses language that ridicules women based on their gender or appearance, one participates and contributes to the inegalitarian nature of our society, just as I did in approaching the man at the airport. Comments about "Man Coulter," the size of Laura Bush's ass, Condoleezza Rice's face, and similar insults proliferate on DU. As progressives, we must be critical of our own role in maintaining or challenging the racist and sexist dominant culture. Either we choose to speak in ways that treat men, women, and people of color with equal criteria, or we contribute to a culture of racism and sexism. Language (or discourse), as Michel Foucault noted, is power itself. Language that objectifies women is a central element of a power structure than reduces women to subordinate status. As a well-meaning progressive, it is essential that you reflect on your use and defense of such language. Ann Coulter is a reprehensible human being, not because she somehow fails to live up to hegemonic notions of femininity, but because of her outlandish political positions. What I ask is that you attack her ideas rather than her womanliness. If you prefer to use silly insults rather than thoughtful political criticism, that's fine, but choose language that in not gendered. Attack her in the same way you do Donald Rumsfeld, Richard Perle or Sean Hannity. The fact she is a woman makes her no better or worse than her ideological comrades. She should be judged on the same basis as they are.

If we want to make the world a better place, if we want to challenge the inequality that pervades our society, we must start with ourselves. Language matters. Each of us need to decide with side of the power structure we want our words to serve.

[tx_dem41]

55. I agree with you , Imenja....

and for the record, I'm a man.

[imenja]

66. thank you

and I know there are many well-intentioned men. I appreciate knowing that you understand my point.

[imenja]

6. Why have they let her out of the nut house?

Ann Coulter is not a sane human being. This speaks to the absolute degradation of the American media that anyone would consider this lunatic's remarks about a experienced journalist like Helen Thomas to be remotely credible. I'm not a fan of George Will, but I'm not going to pretend he doesn't have a right to speak because I happen to disagree with his point of view. That vindictive now pass as journalism or are seen as suitable for taking up the airways speaks to the depths to which our political culture has sunk.

[Stop_the_War]

7. She's the new Leni Riefenstahl

[imenja]

10. hardly

Leni Riefenstahl was a cinematic genius, despite her fascist affiliations. Coulter has none of her abilities.

[Stop_the_War]

12. I don't think a fascist can be called "a cinematic genius" IMHO..

She made propaganda which brainwashed Germans into supporting a regime that killed millions of people.

[imenja]

23. no question

but in cinematic terms her films were brilliant. The maleficent effectiveness that you point to demonstrates that. Your comment gets to the question of the relationship between art and morality. Wagner can be similarly condemned, as can countless other artists. However you view Reifienstahl, she was an artist. Coulter is not. The comparison elevates Coulter to a level she does not deserve.

[Melynn]

60. Leni Riefenstahl and Coulter are both fascists

but that is where the comparison ends. Riefenstahl had real talent, that unfortunately she used for a evil regime but Coulter has no talent.

Coulter's writing style is awful. Her columns are unorganized and jump from one subject to another. Coulter also frequently engages in racist, sexist ad hominem attacks to cover up for her lack of ideas. I would call Ann's writing sophomoric but that would be insult to sophomores.

[tuvor]

9. Yahoo scrubbed that part of her musings.

Changed "old Arab" to "dyspeptic".

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=108&ncid=742&e=10&u=/ucac/20050224/cm_ucac/republicansbloggersandgaysohmy

[TreasonousBastard]

13. Gave it a rating of "1" and...

wonder why Coulter has a Yahoo oped at all.

On edit--

the comma shows that it was sloppily changed, and that change, while it may make the article fit Yahoo's stndards, is as dishonest as Coulter herself. You don't do a quick change on an oped unless there was a typo. And you note the correction.

The correct thing was to have her rewrite the article without the slur or not run it at all.

Or run with it and the slur for all to see.

[Eric J in MN]

39. Maybe Yahoo! runs whatever Universal Press Syndicate sends.

The edit was probably made by the syndicator, since that is the version on the UExpress.com (Universal Press Syndicate) website.

[TreasonousBastard]

44. Seems like tha's what happened, but...

that comma still is sloppy. A really nervous editor.

Is UPS the reincarnation of UPI after Moon bought it? I can't just keep up with the doings of the "liberal" press.

Which brings up my other question about just why Coulter has a column on Yahoo the first place. Something in the syndiction contract?

[Eric J in MN]

45. Two different organizations.

Universal Press Syndicate is best known for distributing cartoons, but distributes essays as well. Yahoo! probably doesn't have to run any of their essays it doesn't want to.

United Press International is a wire-service, like the Asoociated Press, which was purchased by Rev. Moon in 2000.

[TreasonousBastard]

46. Cartoons! That explains it.

[Eric J in MN]

16. Good find. It was probably Universal Press Syndicate, the syndicator,

which cleaned up Ann Coulter's racism instead of exposing it.

UExrpess belongs to Universal Press Syndicate.

The racist remark is cleaned up on their website, as at yahoo:

http://www.uexpress.com/anncoulter/

[bluestateguy]

17. Townhall.com also scrubbed it

Too racist for the Heritage Foundation? Wow, that's bad.

[Eric J in MN]

40. It's edited the same way at Townhall.com as at

the Universal Press Syndicate website, UExpress, and so I think that Universal Press Syndicate edited it and sent it to townhall.com.

[Stop_the_War]

19. I think Yahoo is trying to cover up her racist comments

because they don't want people to realize what an asshole Coulter is.

[Eric J in MN]

37. I think that Universal Press Syndicate edited it before

it even reached Yahoo!

It's edited at the Universal Press Syndicate website.

http://www.uexpress.com/anncoulter/

[chicagojoe]

14. Ann Coulter is going to sooner or later PAY for her stupidity.

It will be more than a couple of pies projected at her someday if that diseased sow doesn't tone down the retarded rhetoric.
Sooner or later, FOX will not be talking to her.They will be reporting on the critical condition she's in. She spews too much crap out of that toilet she calls her mouth. She's going to piss of the wrong person. It's a fact-- if she were a man, someone would have already put her lips through her teeth.

[MeDeMax]

15. my personal impression of her...

is that she is as bigoted as they come.

She called Kerry a "kept man" and a gigolo on Hannity or O'Reilly last summer.

Perhaps she is just a propaganda-pawn trying to scrape a living selling her bigotry in print.

[chicagojoe]

20. Hannity and O'Reilly have her on so they can hit on her.

[Eric J in MN]

32. As far as I know, Sean Hannity is faithful to his wife.

Bill O'Reilly, on the other hand...

http://www.moveleft.com/moveleft_essay_2005_01_22_lust_bill_oreilly_told_his_producer_she_has_sspectacular_boobs.asp

"Lust: Bill O'Reilly Told His Producer She Has 'Spectacular Boobs;' O'Reilly Also Cheats on His Wife (article includes recent audio from a contest by 'The Al Franken Show')"

[Swamp Rat]

30. She's more than that:

:D

[Disturbed]

53. Rethugs stick together like slime in a cesspool.

The fact that no Rethug has ever condemned Coulter for her vile spewing shows that Rethugs have no ethics, morals or shame.

[zippy890]

56. Wow! great graphic n/t

[Swamp Rat]

59. Shut up!

... just kidding! :D

Thanks for the compliment. ;)

[Cocoa]

57. C-span had her on last week

incredibly, Brian Lamb interviewed her like a normal guest.

my email to them:

Dear Washington Journal,

As you must know, Ann Coulter is a vile character that poisons the public discourse in our country.

This item in "Editor and Publisher" adds more evidence of this fact:

http://www.mediainfo.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000818305



Coulter also wrote: "Press passes can't be that hard to come by if the White House allows that old Arab Helen Thomas to sit within yards of the president."


Of course, Coulter's worthlessness was well-known when C-span booked her. So my question is, why did you book her? What possible purpose could her appearance have served us C-span viewers?

I'd also like to ask you to go back and watch a tape of the program. Ask yourself, what possible purpose DID that program serve anyone (except Coulter herself)?

Could there possibly be a crappier hour of C-span? And could you have possibly expected anything better from the well-known hater, Ann Coulter?

[Eric J in MN]

67. That's great news. Thanks to everyone who contacted the media,

Editor & Publisher picked up on it.

[Eric J in MN]

68. What email address did you use to contact C-Span? nt

nt

[bpilgrim]

63. we need to HAMMER on these racist that FILL our airwaves DAILY

as long as they have these dangerous ideologues on the air we need to beat them over the head with their hypocritical rantings and ravings.

they make awfully big targets and we need to CAPITALIZE on it.

the media like to front like they are unbiased well we need to call'em on it and EXPOSE them.

it wont happen over night but that doesn't matter just gives us more time to make it sink in and further destroy their reps until they change their tune.

these folks represent a huge opportunity to EXPOSE their sick agenda for all to see and we should get excited and act like it!

Thank GORE he 'INVENTED' the INTERNET's! :bounce:

peace

[Eric J in MN]

69. Thanks to everyone who contacted the media,

there is now an article in "Editor & Publisher" because of us.

There is now an article in "Editor & Publisher."

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000818305

NEW YORK Ann Coulter, no stanger to controversy, stirred the pot some more this past week, when she took up the subject of the still-simmering story of ex-White House reporter James Guckert, better known as Jeff Gannon, formerly of Talon News.

Writing in her February 23 column for Universal Press Syndicate, Coulter observed, among other things, that Guckert/Gannon was a better reporter than The New York Times' Maureen Dowd and his "only offense is that he may be gay." Nothing unexpected there, but Coulter also wrote: "Press passes can't be that hard to come by if the White House allows that old Arab Helen Thomas to sit within yards of the president."

But when the column got posted by by Universal on its Web site, that line was changed to: "Press passes can't be that hard to come by if the White House allows that dyspeptic, old Helen Thomas to sit within yards of the president."

[PROGRESSIVE1]

71. "KKKoulterkompf, Hiter Hannity, and O'Racist"