Ann Coulter | Gay Slurs | News | Republican Party

Advertisers Abandon Ann Coulter, as do Some Newspapers

The list of advertisers that have abandoned Ann Coulter's website is growing at a steady rate. Net Bank, Verizon, Washington Mutual, AT&T/Cingular, Dollar Rent-A-Car, SmileTrain.org, University of Phoenix, Sallie Mae, LasikPlus, Power Chord Academy, Gulf Shores.com/Alabama Gulf Coast Convention and Visitors Bureau, Ulta.com, and Yellow Pages.com have all abandoned the right-wing pundit's site following her hateful remarks at the CPAC conference, according to Daily Kos.

CoultergeistSome papers have begun to drop Coulter's column as well. The Lancaster New Era, a daily paper, told readers it "halted publication of Ann Coulter's syndicated column following her crude characterization of presidential candidate John Edwards as a homosexual at a public appearance on Friday. Coulter's use of name-calling, sarcasm, and overstatement in her columns too often detracts from the arguments she seeks to make. ...Lancaster County residents of whatever political view -- conservative, moderate, or liberal -- deserve intelligent discussion of issues. Ann Coulter no longer provides that."

Michigan Liberal reports that the Oakland Press also says they'll no longer carry Coulter's column.

Andrew Sullivan received an email from the American Conservative Union. Sullivan reports that the group won't say they'll disinvite Coulter from speaking at CPAC next year, and won't condemn her comments:

"ACU and CPAC leave it to our audience to determine whether comments are appropriate or not. "Ann Coulter is known for comments that can be both provocative and outrageous. That was certainly the case in her 2007 CPAC appearance and previous ones as well. But as a point of clarification, let me make it clear that ACU and CPAC do not condone or endorse the use of hate speech," said David A. Keene, ACU Chairman."

As Sullivan notes: "Why can he not just say so and disinvite her in the future? The answer: because the base would explode. Coulter is central to a core element of the conservative movement today."

The Human Rights Campaign finally piled on yesterday, calling on folks to "remove Ann Coulter from public discourse" by contacting Universal Press Syndicate, the world's largest independent newspaper syndicate. They've provided a handy webpage to do just that.

you may have missed...
Ann Coulter calls John Edwards a "Faggot" [tr]

Feed This post's comment feed

Comments

  1. Ann Coulter dot com is getting a helluva lot of hits or has been (temporarily?) yanked - I can't access it. Before I get flamed, I was hoping to see what other newspapers publishes her column...

    Posted by: jason | Mar 7, 2007 9:31:41 AM


  2. Silent Ill? Damn.. Where's my PS2 Controller when I need it.. hehe

    Posted by: Darren | Mar 7, 2007 9:45:54 AM


  3. The site has been down all morning.

    I wanted to check out PeterParker's alert that the United Negro College Fund was advertising on her site before I fired off an email to them. I can't believe that they would advertise on this hateful, racist, homophobic character actor's website.

    Posted by: Zeke | Mar 7, 2007 10:23:52 AM


  4. Dang, how is she now going to get that Adam's apple fixed so she can look like a real woman, LOL! Love her or hate her, she is trashy and hateful, just like any of the GOP'ers and quite a few of the Dem's, they only pander for votes and get nothing done anyways.

    Posted by: Luke | Mar 7, 2007 10:26:03 AM


  5. Verizon, we can hear ya now, and we love what you have to say.

    Posted by: cup o' Joe | Mar 7, 2007 10:32:21 AM


  6. i particularly enjoyed dan savage's poignant musing on the situation http://www.thestranger.com/blog/2007/03/sean_hannity_total_faggot

    Posted by: ninja rad | Mar 7, 2007 11:16:51 AM


  7. "Remove Ann Coulter from the public discourse"? Not to be a contrarian here, but isn't that turn of phrase a little frightening? Removing her from legitimate political discourse is one thing--and fortunately, things seem to be moving in that direction--but I would think/hope that control of *public* discourse would be out of anyone's hands.

    Posted by: Dan | Mar 7, 2007 11:26:02 AM


  8. Thank God HRC has stepped up and is actually doing the work that GLAAD claimed to be doing all these years with HRC's campaign to to get Universal Press to drop Coulter. She stepped over the line by injecting hate-filled epitaphs into her discourse.

    Battle on HRC!

    Posted by: BeeDee | Mar 7, 2007 11:32:15 AM


  9. As much as it makes me want to choke to say it, I think Andrew Sullivan just crystallized the whole argument for me. He says the whole base would explode if Coulter were disinvited by the ACU. If she is such a core element of the movement that just proves that the entire conservative movement is without substance. LIke Coulter herself, the entire conservative movement is based on unsubstantiated personal opinion and has no basis in fact, logic or simple common sense and when attacked resorts to school yard bullying tactics like name calling. It's time the majority of Americans woke up to the fact they are sheep and are all too willing to be because they don't want to make the effort to form their own opinions so they just stick with knee-jerk reactions and call it "a belief system" and "moral values."

    Posted by: MT | Mar 7, 2007 11:37:33 AM


  10. I enjoy Andrew Sullivan very much but I don't understand why he holds on so tightly to being a "Conservative".

    Posted by: Pugzz | Mar 7, 2007 11:45:54 AM


  11. Her loss is the satirists' gain. :-)

    Tampered Anne Coulter Dolls Recalled

    http://www.crystalair.com/content.php?id=79200703005

    Posted by: mouseai | Mar 7, 2007 11:50:45 AM


  12. Sure you can remove her from the public discourse but you can't make her thin.

    Posted by: gwyneth cornrow | Mar 7, 2007 12:09:25 PM


  13. I can't help but feel that all of this is a huge farce. In the past, Coulter could rhetorically bash gays day in, day out - nobody cared. Look at all the companies that used to support her.
    And now that she calls one measliy straight politician "gay" - now that is suddenly deemed an intolerable insult?
    This whole affair is nothing to celebrate from a gay rights perspective. If this was about gay rights, Coulter would have been dropped from newspapers much sooner. This is actually an insult to gays and lesbians, since Coulter calling a straight man "fag" is apparently so appallingly insulting that she has to be silenced. It's bizarre...

    Posted by: paxx | Mar 7, 2007 12:18:13 PM


  14. I agree with PAXX 100%!

    I said the same thing on another blog.

    Posted by: Zeke | Mar 7, 2007 12:36:03 PM


  15. I agree with Paxx. But change will take generations.

    Nevertheless, Coulter appeals to a lowest common denominator and if this is a way to delegitimize her, I think its prudent to let her feel the sting and get her off television and out of newspapers.

    If she says such things, and then is invited to appear on HBO and in your local newspaper, somehow it makes what she says part of an acceptable conversation which it is not.

    One battle at a time.

    Posted by: John | Mar 7, 2007 1:02:18 PM


  16. Paxx,
    You are right. She has said much worse things about gay people before.
    But I think this incident and its aftermath are good for us. The difference here with this story isn't Ann Coulter, it’s that the political climate has changed. This kind of stuff is no longer getting a free pass like it would have even a half year ago. I really think all the news stories concerning Washington, Hardaway, and Snickers has help change what is appropriate discourse about gay people in our favor. We are not going to have gay marriage in Arkansas anytime soon but every little bit helps.
    Many Republicans and even some Evangelicals are even abandoning Ann Coulter now and that’s a positive thing for us.

    Posted by: Adam | Mar 7, 2007 1:03:04 PM


  17. I see the election is heating up early. Yes, politics is about the millions of personal, ill-considered opinions of rubes and bores, not the high-minded, well considered elite opinion of the NYT Op-Ed pages, which is why it "is based on unsubstantiated personal opinion and has no basis in fact, logic or simple common sense and when attacked resorts to school yard bullying tactics like name calling". Hold up a mirror and Ann's face staring back at you. She's only saying what millions want to hear.

    Posted by: anon | Mar 7, 2007 1:04:57 PM


  18. "This is actually an insult to gays and lesbians, since Coulter calling a straight man "fag" is apparently so appallingly insulting that she has to be silenced. It's bizarre..."

    I see your point, but where Coulter is concerned, I'm not looking a gift horse in the mouth.

    Posted by: mark m | Mar 7, 2007 1:13:00 PM


  19. What do you mean it's a "farce"?

    There's a breaking point and a day of reckoning for everyone. Ann Coulter used anti gay rhetoric in the past, yes, but that was before Isaiah Washington and Tim Hardaway, who have both learned the hard way that using anti-gay rhetoric can be very costly for an individual. (I'm the first person to say Isaiah paid way too much in comparison to the Dan Savages and Rush Limbaugh of this world, but that's the way it goes sometimes)..

    Point is, Ann Coulter miscaculated her move this time. But that wasn't it, the WORST part of it all is that she went back to Fox and tried *redefine* the word 'faggot' as being a schoolyard taunt meaning wuss. That's the sinister part of her joke. Cause make no mistake about that, it was a very deliberate (and dare I say evil?) effort on her part to send a message to others that the word can mean anything they want to, so everyone should feel free to use it. - HRC saw through her game, and decided that it's time to take action against her: which is to counter her where it matters; her bank account and her mainstream tribune of hate.

    That's how effective, legal boycotts are run. And they work.
    http://www.con-suming.com/Keys_of_successful_boycott.htm

    Ann herself will not being silenced. She'll continue to spew all the hateful jokes she wants, and attempt to spin them on Fox or her youtube account, however companies paying her bills will be made accountable by the public (us) for endorsing and paying her for her hate speech. - Can't think of a fairer resolution than this.

    So I hope you guys stop being so squeemish and apologetic about the reaction to Ann Coulter, just because she's a woman. A pale blond woman. She's just the 'angelic' facade to something much more sinister. Don't be this easily fooled! This is not about her, but what is right. Period.

    Pass along the HRC link to all your friends, and write. This is our very chance to fight back, let's not let HRC down!!

    Posted by: Da | Mar 7, 2007 1:25:01 PM


  20. I think her taking a hit is a good thing for gay people. It shows people that you can't make derogatory remarks and go untouched.

    Posted by: Jack! | Mar 7, 2007 1:52:28 PM


  21. "But that wasn't it, the WORST part of it all is that she went back to Fox and tried *redefine* the word 'faggot' as being a schoolyard taunt meaning wuss. That's the sinister part of her joke. Cause make no mistake about that, it was a very deliberate (and dare I say evil?) effort on her part to send a message to others that the word can mean anything they want to, so everyone should feel free to use it."

    I completely agree.

    Posted by: Jack! | Mar 7, 2007 1:56:42 PM


  22. I await Bill Maher's inevitable benign interview with this pop culture cancer.

    Posted by: 000000 | Mar 7, 2007 2:01:17 PM


  23. ZEKE: The United Negro College Fund was not directly advertising on Coulter's site. It had a PSA banner ad placed there by the Ad Council who design/run public service announcement ads on behalf of many groups/causes.

    I sent a comment to the Ad Council website about the placement. I'm not sure if the Ad Council pays to place banners on Coulter's site, or if the website posts them as a 'charitable' donation. Either way, it would be a great place to post a PSA on hate speech.

    Posted by: Kurt | Mar 7, 2007 2:33:14 PM


  24. Sorry, Adam, but I really don't see that change in our favour - that is, not in this instance. What do you think would have happened if someone like Coulter had called a politican a "faggot", say, 20 years ago? She would have been shunned by the public just the same - because of the "insult" to the politician...
    But I do agree with John - as in, of course this backlash may improve our standards in public debate (a little). Which will benefit anyone - gay and straight.
    The HRC, in my humble opinion, should save its powder for the inevitable next instance, in which it is actually a GAY person that was insulted by the likes of Coulter.

    Posted by: paxx | Mar 7, 2007 2:37:19 PM


  25. Jack! that's exactely it.

    And it's about stopping people from making a lofty profit and gaining political influence from using hate speech against gays.

    Posted by: Da | Mar 7, 2007 3:44:17 PM


  26. 1 2 »

Post a comment







Trending


« «Australian Pop Star Anthony Callea Outed« «