Olbermann crowned Bozell "Worst Person" runner-up for claiming NY Times is "rooting for the homosexual revolution"
On the July 13 edition of MSNBC's Countdown, host Keith Olbermann awarded Media Research Center president and nationally syndicated columnist L. Brent Bozell III the second-place spot in his nightly "Worst Person in the World" segment for Bozell's July 12 column attacking The New York Times' sponsorship of the 2006 Gay Games. According to Bozell, the Times, in its articles and sponsorship of events such as the Gay Games, is "rooting for the homosexual revolution" and "actively spread[ing] the gay gospel."
From the July 13 edition of MSNBC's Countdown with Keith Olbermann:
OLBERMANN: Our runner-up, the humorist Brent Bozell, ripping The New York Timeshttp://mediamatters.org/items/printable/200607140003
for being a corporate sponsor of the Gay Games, just like Absolut Vodka is a
corporate sponsor of the Gay Games, and Walgreens, and American Airlines. Bozell
says this means the Times is, quote, "rooting for the homosexual revolution."
Brent, have you checked lately to see if your trolley is still on its
Interviewed yet again on MSNBC/NBC, Coulter attacked 9-11 widows for purported acts of "cruel[ty]"
Summary: In her fifth appearance on NBC or MSNBC since the release of her latest book, Coulter denied that her previous remarks disparaging the 9-11 widows were cruel, claiming that the widows' actions "put a lot of other women at risk for becoming widows."
On the July 14 edition of MSNBC's Hardball with Chris Matthews, guest host Norah O'Donnell interviewed right-wing pundit Ann Coulter. Based on a Media Matters for America review* of the Nexis database, this was at least the fifth time Coulter has been interviewed on MSNBC or its parent network, NBC, since the June 6 release of her book Godless: The Church of Liberalism (Crown Forum, June 2006). As she has in her book and in her previous television appearances, Coulter unleashed a stream of attacks on the widows of 9-11 victims.
During the interview, Coulter denied that her previous remarks disparaging the 9-11 widows were, in O'Donnell's words, "cruel." Rather, she asserted that it is the 9-11 widows themselves who are "cruel," citing the following purported actions by the widows, which she said "put a lot of other women at risk for becoming widows" due to terrorism:
"[F]oisting a 9-11 Commission on the nation, making terrorist attacks more likely by turning it into a Clinton whitewash committee."
"[E]ndorsing John Kerry for president in the middle of a war on terrorism, the guy who voted for funding the troops before voting against it."
"[G]oing around claiming the president of the United States is responsible for these women's husbands' deaths."
Further, as she has done before, Coulter hid behind certain unnamed 9-11 widows to defend her accusation that liberals have used other 9-11 widows as "human shields" to blunt criticism of their views: "[T]here are a lot of 9-11 widows out there, Norah, and I'm hearing from a lot of them who think I wasn't harsh enough."
Coulter previously appeared on the following MSNBC and NBC programs:
The June 6 broadcast of NBC's Today;
The June 6 edition of MSNBC's The Situation with Tucker Carlson;
The June 14 broadcast of NBC's The Tonight Show with Jay Leno; and
The June 26 edition of MSNBC's Scarborough Country.
From the July 14 edition of MSNBC's Hardball with Chris Matthews:
O'DONNELL: Well, Ann, some would argue that your soulmate, Bill O'Reilly on
COULTER: OK, now you're just insulting me, Norah.
O'DONNELL: Oh. So you don't like Bill O'Reilly.
COULTER: I love Bill O'Reilly, but he's been viciously attacking
O'DONNELL: He has, and you know -- and so we -- we've got those made up
into full-screens for you. He says what you said about the 9-11 widows was
brutal, to say something like that, he says it sounds awful, and in order to say
that to specific people you're going to have to prove it. And that's only
--[Rep.] Peter King [R-NY]: Coulter's comments about the widows went beyond the
pale of limits about decency --
COULTER: OK, yeah, yeah, yeah, I've heard it all. On -- on O'Reilly,
he's just bitter because he kept saying "I end this issue. I did it. I did it
first." Well, OK. Congratulations to you.
O'DONNELL: But you -- Ann, you admit that it was cruel, and you don't
want to be cruel.
COULTER: No, I don't. No, I don't at all. I don't think it's at all
cruel. I think it's -- I think it's cruel to be --
O'DONNELL: Do you ever admit you're wrong?
COULTER: Yeah. When I'm wrong, I admit I'm wrong. I think it's cruel to
be foisting a 9-11 Commission on the nation, making terrorist attacks more
likely by turning it into a Clinton whitewash committee. I think it's cruel to
be endorsing John Kerry for president in the middle of a war on terrorism, the
guy who voted for funding the troops before voting against it. I think it's
cruel to be going around claiming the president of the United States is
responsible for these women's husbands' deaths. I think that's cruel because
it's going to put a lot of other women at risk for becoming widows. And there
are a lot of 9-11 widows out there, Norah, and I'm hearing from a lot of them
who think I wasn't harsh enough.
*Search of Nexis MSNBC and NBC News transcript databases: ann coulter and allcaps (coulter) and date(geq (6/6/06) and leq (7/14/06))
Posted to the web on Friday July 14, 2006 at 8:07 PM EST
Coulter again called for NY Times staff to be "executed"
Summary: Ann Coulter again suggested that New York Times staff members should be "executed" over the paper's reports on the National Security Agency's warrantless domestic eavesdropping program and a Treasury Department program designed to track international financial transactions for terrorist activity.
On the July 12 edition of The Jon Caldara Show on Denver radio station KOA, right-wing pundit Ann Coulter again suggested that New York Times staff members should be "executed." Referring to the Times' decision to report on the National Security Agency's warrantless domestic eavesdropping program and a Treasury Department program designed to track international financial transactions for terrorist activity, Coulter declared that the Times had done "something that could have gotten them executed, certainly did get the Rosenbergs executed." As Media Matters for America noted, Coulter agreed with radio host Melanie Morgan's assertion that if New York Times executive editor Bill Keller were convicted of treason she "would have no problem with him being sent to the gas chamber," writing in her nationally syndicated July 12 column that if Times executive editor Bill Keller were convicted of treason, "I prefer a firing squad, but I'm open to a debate on the method of execution."
Noting that The Wall Street Journal and Los Angeles Times each also printed a story about the bank monitoring program on the same day as the Times, Coulter added "I have no problem with prosecuting them for treason either." Further blasting the Times for publishing the story, Coulter said on the newspaper's purported mindset: "[A]s with all insane liberals' ideas, they seem to think they can keep the consequences of their insanity limited to the outer boroughs of New York. It won't affect Manhattanites when the nuke hits." Coulter also defended McCarthyism, stating: "[L]iberals always do this. When they're committing treason, they always scream about how they're being persecuted. They did it with Joe McCarthy while they were sheltering Soviet spies."
From the July 12 edition of The Jon Caldara Show:
COULTER: I mean, for one thing, as I've mentioned here and there in a
column, what is going to happen to The New York Times? As I wrote in this week's
column, Ronald Reagan called Nixon after December 1972; Nixon was president
then, Reagan [California] governor. After Reagan had seen Walter Cronkite's
report on CBS News on the Vietnam War, Reagan called Nixon to say that if this
were World War II circumstances, CBS News would be prosecuted for treason. This
quote is also in my book Treason, by the way. Can you imagine --
CALDARA: Do you have a book for sale? I didn't know that.
COULTER: No, this is one that isn't for sale, but it's a magnificent
book. Well, it is for sale --
CALDARA: It is for sale.
COULTER: -- all my books are for sale. But it's not the book that I'm
supposed to be hawking right now --
CALDARA: Currently pimping, yes.
COULTER: -- I'm just mentioning it because it's relevant to the topic
at hand, The New York Times' treason. Thus, the aptly titled of my book -- title
of my book is Treason. And do you think there is any possibility any action will
be taken against The New York Times for something that could have gotten them
executed, certainly did get the Rosenbergs executed?
CALDARA: Of course not.
COULTER: Well, OK. That's why I'm saying I don't think Bush has
CALDARA: Bring it back to 1985 for me. There was a Times columnist who
went after Reagan. It was Tony Lewis.
COULTER: Ah, yes, whom I quote in this week's column.
CALDARA: You do indeed. And in fact, that's why I brought it up. See,
that's what is known as a subtle plug. Just jump right in there.
COULTER: Part of the theme of this week's column, in addition to
continuing the drumbeat for a treason trial against the Times, is how liberals
always do this. When they're committing treason, they always scream about how
they're being persecuted. They did it with Joe McCarthy while they were
sheltering Soviet spies: "Oh, we're being persecuted! McCarthyism! If you
mention that you like Russian vodka, you'll be investigated in this country!"
That was said by a Soviet spy, now proved by Venona papers, also in my book
Treason. Nixon and Anthony Lewis, in his column back in the 80s, complained that
-- oh, sorry, this was Reagan.
COULTER: Of course, Nixon was supposed to be so brutal to the press, so
horribly, horribly brutal. And yet, he didn't prosecute Jane Fonda for treason.
And then Ronald Reagan, and Anthony Lewis complaining about "Oh, Nixon, he is
trying to intimidate us, trying to intimidate us." You know, I read the Times
back then, and I don't recall noticing any intimidation on the part of the
press. And now we're getting it again with the New York Times -- you know,
having a drop-off box at the New York Times building for, you know, for
classified top-secret programs.
CALDARA: For those people who might not be following this all that
closely, it's not that you're hacked off at the Times because they spin every
story; that's not it. You're not going after them because they make up stories.
You're not going after them for treason because their editorial page is written
in Cuba. You're going at them very specifically because they're giving out,
shall we say it, trade secrets.
COULTER: Right. They're revealing classified programs that will
unquestionably help Al Qaeda, help terrorists launch another attack on New York
or on America someplace. The irony of this is that New York is certainly one of
the very likely targets. And they are in New York. But as with all insane
liberals' ideas, they seem to think they can keep the consequences of their
insanity limited to the outer boroughs of New York. It won't affect
Manhattanites when the nuke hits. And this latest one, I mean, they've done it
before. They did it with the NSA spying program, but this latest one is
particularly outrageous. There's no -- there's no news value in how we are
tracking terrorists in this particular case. This is a top-secret program. When
you have 9-11 commissioners -- I mean, forget the president and the Bush
administration pleading with the Times not to run this. How about both 9-11
commissioners, who are not exactly ferocious hawks, and even Jack Murtha, who
wants to pull troops out of Iraq in the middle of a war -- even Murtha asked the
Times not to print this, and yet the Times goes right ahead.
Times is doing something very, very smart, by the way. The first couple of
stories, they went out all on their own, so it was very easy to beat up just the
Times. Now they realize that there is safety in numbers, and that they are
sharing stories with other newspapers, including, of all newspapers, The Wall
Street Journal. I mean, explain this one to me.
COULTER: And by the way, I
don't know the details of who printed what when, but I've heard liberals, you
know, their big talking point seems to be, "Well, what about the LA Times? And
what about The Wall Street Journal?" I have no problem with prosecuting them for
treason either. Right? Whatever the facts are, fine, but I'll let the
prosecutors and the jury and the judge deal with that. The point is, we know
what the Times is up to because they have a pattern of conduct here. And it's
especially -- I mean, as I said in last week's column, what if the Rosenbergs,
Julius and Ethel, instead of passing secrets about our nuclear program at Los
Alamos, instead of passing it secretly to Soviet agents, instead of that, they
just, you know, printed up a newsletter and published it in their newsletter?
Would that have immunized them from a treason prosecution?
Posted to the web on Friday July 14, 2006 at 6:07 PM EST
Sometimes that make it soooooooooooooo easy for me!