It seems USA today can only stomach sarcasm and snide comments when they are directed at Bush. Obviously it must be that “Vast right wing conservative bias” crushing dissent.

Posted by: Brian at July 27, 2004 10:32 AM

Ann apparently hasn’t figured out what the term “employee” means.

She’s not an independent agent.

Posted by: Don at July 27, 2004 10:34 AM

Don,

Did you say that to Sean Penn, Moore, whoopie and all the other employees who had their dissent “surpressed?”

On topic,

What amuses me the most is USAToday must never have read her stuff. This column is pretty standard Coulter. Did they plan on having her name as window dressing and editing her to blandness?

Posted by: jones at July 27, 2004 10:48 AM

An appalling piece of nasty, immature screed pretending to be political commentary.

Posted by: fran_n at July 27, 2004 11:00 AM

It’s the Golden Rule — those who have the Gold make the Rule.

Ann isn’t out there blogging or offering to do Anything for free. She’s a hired gun, paid to do what her employers want her to do. If their editor says she’s writing something inchoate, it’s her responsibility to make it readable again.

That’s how the whole Pundit thing works.

Her material isn’t being Suppressed. It’s being edited. She knows the drill.

As for the entertainment stars, they aren’t in the same boat. So carping about their treatment doesn’t get to the same place — nobody’s paying them.

If Ann wants to work for free, she can say anything she wants as she wants to. If she wants to be paid, she has to follow the Golden Rule. She’s not a Star — she’s an employee.

Sheesh — even the lowliest burger flipper understands That little piece of the system. How Ann missed it is a great mystery.

Posted by: Don at July 27, 2004 11:01 AM

Jonah Goldberg’s replacement column is here:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2004-07-27-forum-goldberg_x.htm

I think Jonah’s is, objectively, the better piece of writing.

I think Ann Coulter envisioned the assignment as being a blog. I think Jonah interpreted it correctly — it is supposed to be a column; i.e., a finished piece of work.

Posted by: DWC at July 27, 2004 11:33 AM

You don’t hire Jordan and tell him to only shoot from the post, and you don’t hire Ann and tell her she has to write a certain way.

Burger flippers are not in the same category.

Posted by: Brian at July 27, 2004 11:41 AM

I do think the point needs to be made again: this is an example of the media acting in a business like manner.

Is Mikey Moore gonna send an open letter to USA today? I highly doubt it! He’s only enraged when the liberal doctrine is shunned. He’s only enraged when inappropriate comments from out of control leftists are frowned upon by the businesses that hire them

It’s fun to watch Don squirm around this one. If Ann Coulter decided not to do what her “employer” required that a parting of the ways makes sense.

Oh one more thing, I’d like to extend to Linda Ronnstadt the advice that Laura Ingraham gave Barbara Streisand: Shut up and sing.

Posted by: skip at July 27, 2004 12:03 PM

Acting in a business-like way?

The column was consistent with her usual style. They hired her because of her irreverent style and to offset Moore’s irreverent style.

Now they want to clip her wings? You hire Sinatra to sing folkrock?

It’s crazy. You boost circulation by having people look to the column to see what wild and crazy thing she say and then you try to keep.

They are hiring people who have made reputations by going on the offensive and then you attempt to deliver less than what you advertise.

If this was even handed it would be one thing, but my guess is Moore won’t be edited at all.

Posted by: Limpet at July 27, 2004 12:16 PM

I understand your POV but I disagree. If Ann Coulter’s work were such a sure fire circulation booster she’d be in every paper every week and she’s not.

I suspect that this was a disagreement about style and as many of you know, she left NRO after a similar disagreement. In fact, they are reluctant to mention her or link to her work.

Posted by: skip at July 27, 2004 01:13 PM

While I support the transgendered, AC is absolutely useless.

Did anyone read her ‘column’? It’s just plain bad. BAD. “Spawn of Satan”? Contant mentioning of ‘pretty girls”? It’s like I took a dump, folded the paper and mailed it and called it a column.

Posted by: Vince at July 27, 2004 01:56 PM

It must be the air in Boston. Either that, or the Beans are having their desired effect. This in one, mild AC column, I’ll tell ya. For her, this mustabeen like smokin’ a Filtered…GreenPartyReferendum.

Posted by: Cap'n DOC at July 27, 2004 03:23 PM

Yes, the AC column was vituperative, harsh and exceedingly insulting. Does anyone, however, feel that MM’s column from the RNC convention will be thoughtful, informative and issue-relevent? USA Today obviously wanted to get a popular conservative to write about the Dems to attract Repub readership and vice versa. Yes, it’s their right to hire (and fire) whomever they wish, but it does tend to make it look like USA Today hired a pig in a poke (no literal allusions to Ms. Coulter intended) based on name and didn’t research the content they should have anticipated.

Posted by: submandave at July 27, 2004 03:56 PM

Ann Coulter was perfectly accurate and told the Truth in her column.

No Demon likes the Light of Truth to be shined on them.

They prefer to hide in slimy pits that are dark and deadly. It is obvious in their propaganda. Moore is a prime example. We have Trolls on this blog like Moore.

Posted by: leaddog2 at July 27, 2004 04:02 PM

Ld2: When did such as You become the sole arbiter of Truth™?

Posted by: Don at July 27, 2004 04:15 PM

Ann apparently hasn’t figured out what the term “employee” means.

She’s not an independent agent.

Posted by: Don at July 27, 2004 10:34 AM
*****************************************
Yes when they asked her to write an “opinion” column I guess the intent was to tell her what opinions she could have? ;-)

It’s not like her politcal slant was a big secret or she was hired to sing Oldies.

Posted by: Dan Kauffman at July 27, 2004 04:17 PM

If Ann wants to work for free, she can say anything she wants as she wants to. If she wants to be paid, she has to follow the Golden Rule. She’s not a Star — she’s an employee.
******************************************
As anyone is who has somethng to sell whether it be labour, goods, services or prose.

Big deal she can find someone else who will pay her for what she writes.

It is not like USA didn’t know the slant of her writing.

Posted by: Dan Kauffman at July 27, 2004 04:20 PM

The column was consistent with her usual style. They hired her because of her irreverent style and to offset Moore’s irreverent style.

Now they want to clip her wings? You hire Sinatra to sing folkrock?
*****************************************
Naw they hired her to control what she wrote. Guess what? Didn’t work did it.

I am hired to be an Electronic Technician, that defines what I do at work.

SHE was hired because of who she is and what she writes.

Sounds like USA wanted a certain slant writen under her name.

They did not get it.

Posted by: Dan Kauffman at July 27, 2004 04:23 PM

Posted by: Don at July 27, 2004 04:15 PM

Ann apparently hasn’t figured out what the term “employee” means.

She’s not an independent agent.

Posted by: Don at July 27, 2004 10:34 AM

******************************************
Oh but she IS one Don. I think she just proved it.

She does not seem to be you put your name on what we write for you.

They should have hired a writer who had the political slant they wanted.

Posted by: Dan Kauffman at July 27, 2004 04:25 PM

Are there any parallels between this incident and Rush’s brief career on ESPN?

Posted by: skip at July 27, 2004 04:26 PM

If Ann wants to work for free, she can say anything she wants as she wants to. If she wants to be paid, she has to follow the Golden Rule. She’s not a Star — she’s an employee.
******************************************And she did. I just read the piece. Unless there were some virtual hands in my wallet,
I THINK I read it for free. ;-)

Posted by: Dan Kauffman at July 27, 2004 04:29 PM

DK They did hire a writer with the political slant they wanted. One who would act like an employee.

DK Yes, you read it for free. But then, you were Always going to read it for free, weren’t you? So nothing has changed there. In this case, Ann didn’t get paid by USA Today for writing it — which is the specific of the employer/employee relationship. Perhaps you might want to review the concept.

Posted by: Don at July 27, 2004 04:38 PM

Write for free this last time?I doubt it.

She fashions her product and sells it to the market. Some buy and some don’t buy. She does not customize (as far as I know). In this case she was to cover certain subject matter which she did. Since I’ve read the column apparently she was entitled to peddle it elsewhere (there was no “kill” fee which gave the publisher the exclusive right to the article whether published or not).

I suspect for the most part her contract with either a publication or a service says she’ll write a certain minimum number of columns a year and get paid x for them. Her ability to have the column show up elsewhere is on speculation.At her level righting she probably has the right to accept or reject editing. In this case she told USA Today to take a hike. I’ve seen USA Today’s comments over at Human Events. Apparently the editor didn’t have a clue.

USA Today apparently was over its head. I’m sure that column has sold a goodly number of newspapers…but not issues of USA Today.

Posted by: Limpet at July 27, 2004 04:44 PM

But then, you were Always going to read it for free, weren’t you?
******************************************
Not always, I sometimes buy USA at the plant cafeteria for something to read while eating. Choices are limited to them and the local paper.

If she were liberal you would be talking about Philisophical Integrity Don

Posted by: Dan Kauffman at July 27, 2004 04:47 PM

Again with the snide smarmy tag line Don?

The man disagrees with you, and that’s hardly a reason to use such a condescending tone.

I think what you’re suffering from , Don, is an overdose of the liberal elite wannabe syndrome.

The left firmly believes that any truly thoughtful person would have to see the truth in thier positions. Therefore anybody that disagrees with the left’s is simply benighted. It just isn’t so.

Your last two sentences illustrate this character flaw perfectly.

In fact there are common situations where Ann could be paid for her work and specifically NOT be an employee. the government at all levels is constantly reviewing and redefining the nature of the employer/employee relationship. So spare us the condescension, you’re better than that.

Posted by: skip at July 27, 2004 04:52 PM

**** The newspaper still plans to have filmmaker Michael Moore, a vociferous critic of President Bush, write an opinion column during the Republican national convention in a month.****

That way when people become livid at his lies and spins, they’ll just say, well, you know, that’s Michael. Ann Coulter did the right thing of course. She’s no ones pawn and won’t sell her soul for a buck, like her oposition. This does clearly expose the USA for what it is. Hiring Michael Moore to cover the convention is the equivilant to hiring al Jazeerah.

Don, you never cease to amaze. I’ll watch the fat pig on OReilly Factor tonight. I hope OReilly is equipped to handle such a shrewd twisted p. o. s.. Michael Moore appears to be the messiah for you fruitcakes out there in Bushhating Land. One on one, with the right man, Moore is toast. Unfortunately, neither Moore or the liberal media would ever let that happen. I’ll keep my fingers crossed for OReilly.

If you’ll notice, OReilly doesn’t have to have a fleet of lawyers working for him, because he doesn’t out and out lie or cheat the truth.

Posted by: No Party at July 27, 2004 04:59 PM

DK: Nope — I would be talking about being an employer dealing with an employee. At its base, that’s what the contretemp between Ann and USAT is really all about.

You actually buy USAT? Go figure! When I see it, I just pick it up where someone has left it. Otherwise, I don’t need to bother with yet another McPaper from Gannet. I got one of those in my community already.

Skip: When someone confuses an employer/employee relationship with a philosophical disagreement, then assisting them to focus on the proper matter is entirely appropriate. To do otherwise is to prolong Error unnecessarily. It’s hardly condescending to do that. In fact, there is no other language that can contain the substance of the recommendation as briefly, other than to put it in the Imperative — and that would surely be misconstrued.

I have no character flaw that you can find, other than I disagree with (a) your philosophy and (b) your confusing Philosophy with Practice. To disagree with you is Not a character flaw. To attempt to rectify your confusion is an Act of Kindness.

There are exactly No conditions for Ann to be anything other than an employee of USAT, unless she had a specified contract that said her every word would be published without editing. It would probably sail right over your head to note that if that were the case, there would be no Issue here to resolve, I suppose.

You’ll eventually have to figure out that there is No obligation from Anyone either to agree with The Right, you, Ann or anyone else. Not being in lockstep with your philosophy is not a Moral or an Intellectual Failure.

It’s just how The World really is.

Get used to it. Such as you aren’t going to change it.

Posted by: Don at July 27, 2004 05:02 PM

NP: O’Reilly doesn’t lie?

Oh dear! That’s just Well beyond the pale. For such as you, even an attempt to educate wouldn’t be worth the effort. But pour les autres, I’ll give it a go regardless.

If you do the research, you’ll find a bunch of time when O’Reilly has lied — and in this case, that’s in the strict sense of the term. He was aware of the truth, and deliberately contravened it. Here’s an example from just yesterday:

“…on the July 26 edition of The O’Reilly Factor, O’Reilly asked Joan Jett, “Howard Dean is a pretty off the wall guy as far as some of the things that he wanted — pull out of Iraq immediately, give the terrorists a win there. Are you that liberal?”

The truth is that while Dean opposed the decision to invade Iraq, he believed that the United States had to commit the military force necessary to stabilizing Iraq. Here’s what Dean said on MSNBC’s Buchanan & Press on September 1, 2003: “I think it was a mistake to go into Iraq in the long run. Now that we’re there, we’re stuck there … and we cannot leave because losing the peace is not an option. We cannot leave Iraq.”

The report of O’Reilly’s statement is correct.

The report of what Dean said is also correct.

Unless you wish to protect O’Reilly under the same rubric by which The Right protects Dubya — that he Truly Believed what he was saying was true, but didn’t know whatthehell he was talking about — you are left with the interpretation that he lied.

So — which way do you want to take it?

Did O’Reilly simply Not Know what Dean had said, but went ahead and accused him anyway?

Or:

Did O’Reilly really Know what Dean had said, but decided to lie about it?

Take your pick — the choice here is exhaustive.

Your Hero doesn’t come out looking any better than you do, regardless of choice.

There are those who either can’t tell the difference between truth and lying, or prefer not to see it when it’s made obvious to them. Either way, there’s not much to recommend them.

Posted by: Don at July 27, 2004 05:12 PM

Don comments, “You’ll eventually have to figure out that there is No obligation from Anyone either to agree with The Right, you, Ann or anyone else. Not being in lockstep with your philosophy is not a Moral or an Intellectual Failure.”

No, it’s just anti-American. She hit the nail on the head when she referred to the Dems as the French Party. We are under no obligation, as Americans, to let a group of fools take over this country and change it into a socialist society. In fact, it will be our duty to do whatever necessary to prevent that from happening. Move to France if you want that kind of place to live. Stop trying to fu-kin’ change us.

It’s just how The World really is.

Get used to it. Such as you aren’t going to change it.

Posted by: Don at July 27, 2004 05:02 PM

Posted by: No Party at July 27, 2004 05:13 PM

NP: Such as you are Not the determinor of what is American and what is not. You have an over-inflated sense of your own self, if you believe that to be the case.

Your ranting is a good reason to stay the course, seems to me. Such as you ought never to occupy a position of authority over your fellow citizens. Your first step would be to demand that everyone else agree with Your take on public matters.

Down that road lies Tyranny.

Posted by: Don at July 27, 2004 05:18 PM

(Sorry, I got distracted before finishing Don’s comments)

Don says, “It’s just how The World really is.”

Only the small one you live in.

Don says, “Get used to it. Such as you aren’t going to change it.”

Pretty full of yourself there cowboy. If you think for one minute, Americans will stand by and let socialist liars take over this country, you better open the shades and have a look outside.

Posted by: No Party at July 27, 2004 05:25 PM

I’m getting really f*****g tired of getting kicked off the page after a short period of time and losing a half hours work. REALLY irritated.

My little french buddy said, “NP: Such as you are Not the determinor of what is American and what is not.”

There are too many things that are ‘American’ to list. I know exactly what is NOT.

My little frenchman said, ” You have an over-inflated sense of your own self, if you believe that to be the case.”

Absolutely not. I only know very well what is “NOT AMERICAN” and what undermines her.

My little Frenchman said, “Your ranting is a good reason to stay the course, seems to me.”

Ranting? I’m just challenging people that are trying to change this country into something they want. My biggest motivation to vote, now, is to cancel out yours.

My little frenchman said, ” Such as you ought never to occupy a position of authority over your fellow citizens.”

As a politician, I never will. However, I employ and lead close to 100 people. They would beg to differ with you.

My little frenchman said, ” Your first step would be to demand that everyone else agree with Your take on public matters.”

Well, I can take alot of differing opinions on a lot of differing matters, but it would piss me off if I heard anyone around here promoting lies like the liberal fruitcakes. Funny though, when you hire only the sharpest and best people, you don’t ever run into any of those characters.

My little Frenchman says, “down that road lies Tyranny.”

No, my little french nosepicker, down your road lies socialism. May your road lead you to someplace else to live. North, should do the trick.

Posted by: No Party at July 27, 2004 06:08 PM

NP: For your edification:

NARCISSISM: Self-love. …the libido can also attach itself to the ego (“ego-libido”) to the exclusion of external object-cathexes. This situation leads, according to Freud, to narcissistic behavior and to narcissistic neuroses such as megalomania. Lacan makes narcissism an even more central aspect of the human psyche, aligning it with what he terms the “imaginary order,” one of the three major structures of the psyche (along with the Real and the symbolic order). Lacan suggests that, whereas the zero form of sexuality for animals is copulation, the zero form of sexuality for humans is masturbation. The act of sex for humans is so much caught up in our fantasies (our idealized images of both ourselves and our sexual partners) that it is ultimately narcissistic. As Lacan puts it, “That’s what love is. It’s one’s own ego that one loves in love, one’s own ego made real on the imaginary level” (Freud’s Papers 142).

This should assist you somewhat.

Posted by: Don at July 27, 2004 06:35 PM

Don the little frenchman said, “This should assist you somewhat.”

Yes it will. If I run out of toilet paper I will print that out and put it to good use.

Posted by: No Party at July 27, 2004 07:19 PM

By the way Don, that’s quite an achievement. You being able to type with one hand, while amusing yourself with the other. What do you call your imaginary mate? Your ‘right hand man’?

Posted by: No Party at July 27, 2004 07:22 PM

I find it ironic that a ‘trial lawyer’ is telling us he’s gonna get us affordable health insurance. Let’s see, why do we have ‘out of sight’ health insurance?……….oh yeah, ‘trial lawyers’. Especially those ones that ride bogus claims to the hilt, making themselves wealthy at the expense of people with legitmate claims and everyone else that pays insurance premiums.

Kerry needs someone that can twist and manipulate issues, like a trial lawyer, to try to sell his bill of goods to unsuspecting Americans.

Posted by: No Party at July 27, 2004 07:29 PM

You actually buy USAT? Go figure! When I see it, I just pick it up where someone has left it. Otherwise, I don’t need to bother with yet another McPaper from Gannet. I got one of those in my community already.
******************************************
Then I take it your out of the side of your mouth comment about me always going to read it for free was actually projection of your usual activities? :-)

Posted by: Dan Kauffman at July 27, 2004 07:41 PM

DK They did hire a writer with the political slant they wanted. One who would act like an employee.
*****************************************
One who would parrot their own opinions? ;-)

See it would not be as effective, unless they could persuade someone like her to alter their point of view.

Their hired her to write Ann Coulters opinions but that is NOT what they wanted her to do. They wanted her to write THEIR opionions.

So she took her talents elsewhere, that is the right of labour.

Posted by: Dan Kauffman at July 27, 2004 07:45 PM

Ld2: When did such as You become the sole arbiter of Truth™?

Posted by: Don at July 27, 2004 04:15 PM

Don,

1) When I got tired of smarmy, supercilious idiots who support Liars like Joe Wilson and Michael Moore (Moore’s Lies are now exposed by the 9-11 Commission).

2) Or perhaps it was as my buddies and I were taking fire to preserve those idiot’s rights? ( I have NO IDEA WHY, now).

3) Or perhaps it was as I was struggling to Defend My Home County as a young prosecutor.

4) Or perhaps it was as I stuggled to build a successful business.

Those are just a few of the times that I defined TRUTH.

Don, you will never have a clue like that. Most lefties don’t. They just like being Leeches.

Posted by: leaddog2 at July 27, 2004 08:10 PM

I can just picture an Impressionist being asked by USA to do a painting.

They finish it and the management says.
“What we really want is something more in the Style of Boris Vallejo.

A good question would be then why ask ME to do a painting for you?

A good statement would be, that isn’t my style, sorry you better find another artist.

Posted by: Dan Kauffman at July 27, 2004 09:09 PM

I’m with USA Today, if the piece would have ran thoroughly unedited it would have been an obscure rant. The thing lacked direction and was mere yelping; all it needed was a rewrite…to damn busy wiping spittle off here blouse.

Posted by: obelus at July 28, 2004 03:40 AM

“I’m with USA Today…”

From the inside looking out, would you say that USA Today is objective in its presentation of the news, or not?

The italicized portion Posted by: obelus at July 28, 2004 03:40 AM

Posted by: Cap'n DOC at July 28, 2004 09:01 AM

Such as I are going to change the world Don, and let me tell you how:

1. RAising kids who support and respect the traditional values of America. I have a son who is a Marine and I’m damned proud of him. My 14 year old daughter has the kind of behavior that outright astonishes lesser parents.

2. Acting at the grassroots level to oppose the creeping socialism such as you propound. Speaking up and speaking out every chance I get in an effort to influence people.

3. Voting for the types of candidates that support my beliefs. And actively supporting them during their candidacy.

4. Using my economic influence, i.e. spending my money, carefully. So no Robin Williams movies in my house, nope. And no Sean Penn or that other idiot Tim Robbins. No Ben and Jerry either.

So save the thesaurus work for someone who’ll fall for it. You’re on the wrong side of this one to the surprise of absolutely no one.

And I guess I touched off such a debate that I never got my question answered: any parallels between this and Rush’s departure from ESPN?

Posted by: skip at July 28, 2004 10:20 AM