While ash began as a fan of Mr. Matthews voicing a perplexing concern, by the time she stopped sending messages she had grown bitter toward him from a sequence of revelations as much regarding his character as his interviewing techniques. The tipping point incident – as she later learned was the case for many other liberal viewers – were his remarks regarding the inherent likeability of one George W. Bush – to all but the fringe left “wack-jobs,” that is. At that moment Ms. Coulter’s appearances, in addition to a great many subsequent issues, became moot. Mr. Matthews had become as distasteful – and as unwatchable - as his vilified guest, and it no longer mattered who – or what – comprised the substance of his program.
Having collected and compiled these emails from various and disparate sources, ash struggled to assemble them into a coherent flow. Many of them are undated; ash decided to preserve the dates of the ones that are for a sense of unfolding events. While some stand alone as self-contained pieces, others lead into each other. ash wrote the vast majority of them; those she did not appear in blue type.
Finally, note that while the initial letters addressed Mr. Matthews (until an actual person replaced the automatic responses she had received), as in a play about a character who never appears onstage, he never responded, never engaged, was never involved in the conversation. Of course ash is certain he remains unaware of her to this day. Ah, the insulated celebrity.
Friday, January 17, 2003
Memo to email staff: this message will be sent every day, Monday through Friday, until I receive a real (as opposed to automated) response.
Chris, Chris, Chris. I don’t get you, at least when it comes to one Ann Coulter. Here’s a woman who’s supercilious, disingenuous, cruel and dismissive in the extreme, who, in her last appearance, analogized school sniping with birth control, and you continue to invite her on your program. Why? This is not a rhetorical question. Her song and dance routine is an insult not only to your viewers but to you. It was particularly distasteful last night to watch that poor, sincere man, apparently unfamiliar with Coulter’s tactics, attempt to conduct a serious debate that she insisted on turning into an exchange between Mike Stivic and Archie Bunker. You know: Mike: I do love my country...Archie: God bless America...Mike:...which is why I protest...Archie:...stand beside her and guide her, you Pollock...Mike:...in order to correct injustices...Archie:...my home, sweet home.
Yes, that’s how I felt watching Coulter, whose only argument (it’s unconstitutional) wasn’t even valid. Affirmative action, not quotas, was the issue. And I’m afraid that your credibility more than hers is on the line here, for not challenging her, for having her on the show in the first place, given her track record. I mean, with all the legitimate conservatives to choose from, surely you could have booked another guest. Toensing or DiGenova, for instance, attorneys with useful information who actually believe what they say.
Chris, what gives with Coulter? Is it some kind of below-the-waistline brain that emerges when an attractive woman is involved? Sorry about that, but I honestly can’t conceive of another explanation. Meanwhile, this very faithful viewer cringes in dread every time you introduce her, as I know I am about to witness an ugly spectacle indeed.
I have emailed Chris Matthews multiple times every weekday since January 17 of this year. Thus far, my only response has been of the “auto” variety. My concerns are genuine; obviously I have been persistent. But the email screeners I assume the network employs have yet to take me seriously enough to dignify my messages with a thoughtful, real reply. In fact, I would be willing to wager they have never read them. What do I do to reach Matthews himself, or are the people who screen emails to this address the same group who handle his mail?
I’m not going away.
CAMCORDER AT A COCKTAIL PARTY
A very good analogy (and Matthews loves them) for last night’s show’s last two segments. Like these regulars forgot they’re on a television program WITH AN AUDIENCE, not at some Washington wingding. Like someone set up a camcorder at a cocktail party and just let it roll.
Trouble is, it’s not the case. People talking on top of each other, frustrating to attempt to distinguish what each one is saying. Outbursts of laughter, the distinct and alienating sense of exclusion from the conversation, whether or not one of the “party-goers” voices my own sentiments. But why should I feel any more like I’m screaming in a vacuum when my emails have been ignored since January 17. SHE was on again last night, not at the cocktail party but on the first segment. She does not warrant the dignity of a name. Matthews has never seen my written objections to her appearances on his program and he never will. Matthews has no idea how it feels to fast forward past one guest, listen only to the others, be locked out from participating, because he’s been in the game so long.
Matthews is an insider. Matthews has forgotten that the outsiders, otherwise known as viewers, determine whether he remains on the air. Theoretically, at least.
I wish I were a Neilssen family. I wish I were 1,000 such families. I would stop watching right now, spiting myself in the process, just to remind him that viewers do matter.
Subject: RE: TUESDAY'S SHOW
COMING SOON: EMAIL BLITZ
Friday, May 2
Actions have reactions. Lack of action has its consequences, too. The email below has been sent every weekday since January 17. That’s 15 weeks worth, or 75, emails. Put another way, the auto responses could literally paper one wall of my bedroom.
While I don’t pretend to know how the email is processed, whether it is handled by a college intern, a staff member with numerous other duties, a rotating group of people, or none of the above, what I do know is somebody is not doing his/her/their job. If he/she/they were, I would have an actual response by now (as opposed to the kneejerk nonresponse the computer spits out) if only to get rid of me. What I do know is that on January 17, 15 weeks ago today, I submitted a thoughtful, serious comment which, as of last night, not only has not been addressed but was further exacerbated by a repeat performance of the guest in question. Can you imagine how frustrating, infuriating, exasperating that is? Now further imagine that, in this viewer’s opinion, the guest in question is a one-woman self-hyping machine with no particular incentive to contribute to a debate but, on the contrary, merely draw attention to herself, and who, in this viewer’s opinion, therefore is worthy of no appearances in the media much less a forum provided by the brilliant and insightful Chris Matthews.
Now imagine me taking advantage of the fact that I record Hardball, at least affording me the opportunity – scratch that, reduced to the situation in which I feel I have no choice but to fast forward past every remark made by the guest in question on last night’s program, since I do highly regard Matthews and the other guest and am interested in their input. How hard is that? How desperate is that? How unpleasant is that, considering that in order to do so I’m confronted with sustained images of her smug mug? I’m here to tell you that editing one person’s remarks while taking pains to catch those of the other two is not fun. And imagine me wondering why is it, exactly, that this vitriolic charlatan whose latest editorial accused liberals of beating up on poor Sen. Santorum because Iraq lost its war (?!) and whose previous column suggested it’s perfectly acceptable that Franklin Graham convert the Iraqi savages to Christianity, is deemed an appropriate panelist on the otherwise astute Chris Matthews’ program. Does he read her asinine articles? Does he find her reasonable and for real? Or does he know full well she’s full of crap but a) she increases ratings, b) he likes her anyway, c) he can’t see her for what she is for the hormones clogging his brain, d) all of the above, e) some of the above, or f) none of the above. I DON’T KNOW because no one will reply to my 15-week-old email unless, of course, you count the “I can’t reply but sometimes I do!” gibberish, which I don’t.
Finally, imagine my outrage that the otherwise perceptive Matthews, without having offered some explanation for having the guest in question on his program 15 weeks ago, invites her back, thus implying an imprimatur of legitimacy on someone who couldn’t be more bogus. By “explanation” I don’t mean something I necessarily agree with, I don’t mean a justification, but something. Just something. Say something. Tell me anything. Choose one of the items from the multiple choice list I provided just to appease a loyal, faithful viewer. If you can’t imagine how I feel, try sending an email to Matthews yourself, then read what you get back, and imagine that’s all you’ve been getting for 15 weeks. If you’re satisfied, then you’re unpersuadable. But if you feel even the slightest tinge of aggravation, you are feeling 1/75th of what I feel.
You’re beginning to understand that the auto responses are worse than nothing; they are downright insulting. Oh, and one more thing. For Christmas I received copies of two Matthews books. I haven’t had time to open them yet. At this moment I don’t have the inclination either.
No No No No No. No Coulter. She is a one-woman, cynical, shock-and-awe practicing, dirty bomb. I have been watching your program since it was in its half hour format. I believe you owe me an explanation for her continuing appearances, which constitute tacit approval. Surely if she were a man you would have caught onto her long ago and banned her from ever doing so.
For an allegedly brilliant man you have one huge blind spot.
Just signed up for your daily briefings. I am beyond alienated, way beyond insulted.
Loyal viewer now considering abandoning you in disgust,
Time to update the autoresponse. Something to the effect of “We never read your email, much less answer it, unless you’re someone on Chris’es insider list. But just to appease you, or at least to blunt the momentum of your ire, we’ll pretend ‘we read all of it’ while systematically disposing of it into the daily junk heap.”
Self-fulfilling prophecy ? More likely it was Friday and Matthews was visibly strained. Ingraham (who’s still pissed her Watch It show – which should have been called Republican Think Tank – was cancelled) didn’t help.On the contrary, Laura, elitism IS about where you went to school and whether you feel entitled to as many riches as you can accumulate or obligated to share them, not who knows more, professors and delegates or the masses watching Seinfeld reruns instead of Hardball, which is why this is a representative democracy as opposed to a direct one. While Levinson, no debater, never took her on. Actually, in that sense, he was refreshing.
Chris was a deflated souffle. Unless it’s someone like Kim Gandy, no beauty queen, he really does go easier on the women. Case in point: Ingraham on the Dixie Chicks: “the fans say we’re going to listen to someone else for a while.” Not exactly, Laura. The right-wing radio jocks say “we’re going to stop playing them, you should boycott them and burn the cd’s you already own.” And the masses obediently comply. So much for they know more than scholars and ambassadors. But Chris never challenged her and Levinson shrugged.
Then again, enough of the masses eventually decide, wait a minute. I like them. Why should I deprive myself of their music. Cd’s rebound as do concert ticket sales. I suspect it’s the liberals who came to their rescue.
As for my current internal debate about Matthews, the verdict is still hung. I’ll see what happens Monday and go from there. If I do continue watching, it will be no thanks to you. ash
How long ago must it have been. Johnny Carson was still host of the Tonight Show and Michael Landon was still alive. Describing the set of Bonanza, and that they were hardly real cowboys. Something to the effect of “We got on those horses, and they had minds of their own. We tugged on the reins and they laughed at us. Wherever they decided to go, that’s where we went. We were along for the ride.”
How apt. Last night my stupid local FOX affiliate interrupted the end of the Emmys 3 times, first to the syndicated show that was supposed to follow AFTER the previous one, which always runs long, had concluded, then to a commercial, and finally, to dead air. Of course there’s no one to call on a Sunday night. No one in the office, and you don’t really believe the control room guys are going to answer the phone in the midst of their incompetence. My boyfriend proclaimed whoever pushed the wrong buttons should be fired. I told him no one will be.
Weekend help.
Meanwhile another Monday, another week of Hardball. Who might it be tonight? An expert on Clark, perhaps, another Democratic presidential contender? R and D strategists debating the pros and cons of delaying the Cal. Recall ( how many times more money, do you suppose, do they make than the average farmer or teacher?). Howard Fineman, the absolute sine quo non on dissecting spin (and didn’t he try to debunk poor Andrew’s pathetic illusions that the administration has been honest on the Matthews Show? How do you gently break it to someone that there is no Santa Claus?). Safe from Dirty Bomb (my nickname for that demented purveyor of ugly rhetoric) for a while, or maybe not. Maybe you’ll spite me by increasing her appearances. Whoever’s on, Chris will be reenergized after his respite. Oozing adrenalin and enthusiasm, loving the job he loves.
Salt in my wounds from your non-answers. Arrogance is easy, which is why every religion preaches humility.
Assault-the-other-commentators style and lies-and-distortions as substance. That’s quite an insult to the other guests. No matter. The next time Coulter’s on Chris is out. It’s that simple no comma Dominic..
-----Original Message-----
From: Bellone, Dominic (NBC, MSNBC) [mailto:
Sent: Wednesday, October 01, 2003 3:58 PM
To: 'ash'
Subject: RE: Form Letter
We put Ann Coulter on because she is a provocative guest who fits in with the style and substance of our show...A lot of our fans like seeing her and Chris debate...It's that simple [sic] ash..
-----Original Message-----
From: ash [mailto: ash.com]
Sent: Wednesday, October 01, 2003 4:46 PM
To: Bellone, Dominic (NBC, MSNBC)
Subject: RE: Form Letter
Why is she on, repeatedly? What about her does he find legitimate, with all the evidence she is anything but? He's read her book; has he read her columns? Are there ground rules, such as you must not use your despicable rhetoric and incendiary tactics against other guests, or you are to appear sans other guests, just you against me? Why does he apparently take her at face value, when far less intelligent/savvy people (such as unprofessional and politically inexperienced readers of my Midwest community newspaper) pegged her long ago as the ego-driven exhibitionist she really is? Finally, is it just about ratings?
-----Original Message-----
From: Bellone, Dominic (NBC, MSNBC) [mailto:
Sent: Thursday, September 25, 2003 6:02 PM
To: 'ash'
Subject: RE: Form Letter
What's the question [sic] ash? All I need is one or two sentences? [sic]
-----Original Message-----
From: ash [mailto:ash.com]
Sent: Thursday, September 25, 2003 2:58 PM
To: Bellone, Dominic (NBC, MSNBC)
Subject: Form Letter
This is the form letter you will receive every weekday until I receive an actual answer. You know the question.Furthermore, you asked, "ash, how can I help you?" I told you how. Now do it.
If there is a current matter - a letter from a local more perceptive than Matthews, perhaps; a particularly vile article by Coulter; my own musings or observations - that will comprise a separate communication, and will not repeat indefinitely. This one will.
Oops, hope that’s not too harsh or, uh, provocative. What’s interesting about that word is that its connotations are all over the map. AC, or Dirty Bomb, as I call her, is provocative. Not in her latest editorial, which I won’t bother you with (as linkmaster supreme, you can access it yourself); on the contrary, it’s downright boring, not to mention unimaginative, unclever, lame, and frankly irrelevant. To her credit, at least she didn’t mention some woman’s unshaved, smelly underarms. Now THAT would have been provocative.
As Chris salivates in Hollywood, my camcorder is grinding to a halt. I’m sure it’s just me, but he’s becoming less compelling. Maybe I’m preparing for the inevitable “last”” show, when SHE will be on, provoking at its ugliest, and I will resolutely keep my promise to myself. It will be that much easier to cut him loose when there’s not as much to cut. By the way, are you the producer who told him to stop interrupting so much? I dissent. His interruptions are not only entertaining, they provide valuable insight into his biases, which are useful to viewers in assessing their own position on the issues.
Carl Reiner was adorable last night. Pinching Chris’s cheek was a delightful departure from the hardball format, and I’m not being sarcastic. Who contacted whom for this appearance is what I’m wondering. What a luxury to be able to call the show and say, “Hey, I’m available,” whether or not that was the case with Reiner. Ken Adelman is my cousin’s brother-in-law (his family calls him an aberration) and Jeremy Larner, academy award winner author of The Candidate, is my second cousin. (I’ve never met him but I’ve seen him on TV.) Larner might make a great guest when Mr. Schwarzenneger, in the aftermath of his delicious victory, turns to his minions with the query, “Now what?”
Yes, it’s more than aggravating to be the recipient of whatever you players decide to dish out on the program each installment. No, I won’t keep bugging you with more emails. You did, finally, answer my question. I never seriously hoped, much less believed, I could sway you.
Had a long phone conversation with my sister, a Santa Monica resident, today. “I don’t want to talk about it,” she warned me. “I’ve been shutting it out as much as possible.” But she couldn’t ignore it entirely. She voted, of course, noting the somber, resolute atmosphere, the determined, if grim and resigned, expressions at her dislocated polling place. While she never heard of him (having engaged in politics to the extent of and not beyond Aaron Brown), while she skipped the blow by blow sequence of events in favor of the Cubs game (no sports aficionado she), including in particular the victory lap, my sister is a Lawrence O’Donnell skeptic. Cynical and outraged. Chris used to be like that. Though he values O’Donnell’s input, he spent a good part of last night’s discussion discrediting and undermining him, while once he would have sympathized with his views. It was quite a marathon, as good an occasion as any to denounce politics in general and Chris in particular.
Chris transformed me, a baby boomer in college during Viet Nam who managed to transcend it, into an avid viewer of his program and others of its ilk. Now, in conjunction with his own transformation, he has transformed me back. I used to ignore politics as irrelevant to my personal well-being, incapable of affecting the quality or lack thereof. In recent years I discovered it fascinating, if not useful, as a subset of psychology. What I didn’t realize is how much of it is not abnormal psychology but entirely normal: the human psyche at its most selfish, most power-mongering, most ugly. It’s not a condition limited to the politicians, the strategists, and the minions, but can extend to the commentators as well, when they slip into the cesspool.
I was so much smarter then
So label Matthews Exhibit A. He succumbed to the lure of glamour and deceit. And call it a trifecta of events: the revolting spectacle in California, much too much coverage culminating in last night’s beach bonanza, and Matthews’ foolhardy choice of a guest-who-shall-remain-nameless in the aftermath.
Tell him to have fun on Leno, which I won’t be watching either. He’s as much an entertainer as Schwarzenneger is a governor.They’re both players in one arena. So much for the blurred line between show biz and politics. It no longer exists.
Over...and out.
That’s what his closing comments are, on the weekend show. It, too, has been cancelled in this household. To be fair to Matthews, he gave the warning signals to anyone paying attention. The book Hardball could have been subtitled “How to be a Player,” certainly NOT “Fulfill Your Higher Calling.” Well, Matthews has become a player. Like Billy Joel verifying his success by marrying Christie Brinkley, Chris affirms his on the Tonight Show. Which brings me to Coulter. She’s a real player, a player among players. The point is it doesn’t matter to Matthews how she became one.
So I finally figured it out on my own. Why he has her on, as opposed to, say, Aaron Brown or Keith Olbermann, whose scruples trump the quest for ratings AND coolness. With Matthews there’s no such dilemma.
I requested and received Hardball and Now Let Me Tell You...two Christmases ago. Have read part of the former which I’ll continue unless and until my sensibilities reach the breaking point. As for the latter, haven’t opened it yet. His nonchalant insider perspective does have a negative cumulative effect.
I love it! Coulter has not appeared on Hardball since Chris observed that the truth means nothing to her. Yet someone still sees fit to tacitly appove of her with links to her column.
You may be interested in the following. On second thought, you’ve proven - many times over – that some people (read: Chris) never learn.
You get a lotta emails praising your detailed accounts of the Washington galas you attend, clamoring for more? This won’t be one of them.
They’re hip. They’re insider. They’re fascinating. They’re enlightening. More like revolting, immaterial, gratuitous, and, yes, boring.
That’s right. Boring.
Meanwhile, no Coulter appearances, I note, since Matthews observed that facts mean nothing to her. Better late than never that he came to his senses (or did she quit before he could fire her?). I assume your formal concession to the fact that I had her pegged is forthcoming.
Right. That’ll coincide with your self-imposed ban on subjecting bulletin subscribers to your long-winded descriptions of the DC parties. Well, the bulletin ain’t no Camelot, and you’re no Marie Antoinette.
Stop the presses. Noonan is wrong. At least about me. Women DO like angry men – when there’s good reason for their anger. And not all Americans – not by a longshot – want sunny, easy-going presidents, as opposed to serious, intelligent ones.
Her conservative bewilderment of Dean is about as useful as a liberal wondering just how Bush continues to deceive his followers into believing he ISN’T a moronic frontman.
Hey, at least by not watching Hardball anymore, I get to miss the likes of her.
The Washington Post website has gone blooey. Meanwhile, I am busily coopt...er, collecting links in order to satisfy my craving for various columnists without relying on your bulletins for access to them. Yep, it's the backdoor strategy.
The article about behind the scenes Hardball on the night of the primary was typically revolting. Does anyone ever email praise for such self-indulgence, to thank you for providing the vicarious thrill of seeing Chris'es caked makeup or hearing the kibitzing during commercials? "It's as if I was there, experiencing the excitement of media coverage up close and personal." Puke.
Soon enough I will be independent of Hardball, the bulletin as well as the program. May I never be subjected to the phrase "slice 'em and dice "em" again.
The focus groups are terminally boring and generally useless to viewers. The only feature more insufferable than focus groups are love letters from Ronald to Nancy.
Subject: RE: PROTOTYPE
Subject: RE: Dominick, this one's for you
G. Gordon Liddy is a thug, and not even a very good one.
It’s not enough to disagree; you must expose her for what she is.
DOES MY BEAUTY ENHANCE MY CREDIBILITY? Wednesday, July 9
In January (not of this year), just after college finals, I visited New Orleans from Champaign, Illinois. Since I was supposed to drive there with a disparate assemblage of other students contacted through bulletin boards and ads in the campus paper, I waited days after my last final for everyone else to finish his or hers, only for every group member to drop out for reasons long forgotten.
Young and stubborn, I went alone. A naïve 18 year old stepping off the bus into a strange, sweltering, tough city, I somehow made my way to a YWCA where thankfully I met two women, traveling buddies, a few years older than I. I clung to them. Wise and experienced as I was timid and overwhelmed, they guided me through the streets, through the French Quarter, into the clubs, leaving around 11 pm, returning at 3 am, sleeping all day.
It was dangerous and it was exhilarating. On one such occasion, as we waited for a city bus that ran all night, a small, dark man slowly approached. Addressing none of us in particular, he asked shyly, in an unidentifiable accent, “You come with me? I pay.”
As we turned away in unison, one of my companions disgustedly murmured, “Ah, men make such fools of themselves.”
Words to heed, Chris, though evidence indicates you won’t. By interviewing Coulter the way that you do, as often as you do, culminating with your lecherous comments on tonight’s installment, you may have succeeded in alienating most of your female viewers as well as many of the men.
Did I say “alienating”? I’m utterly repelled.
Chris, I’m afraid you’ve shot your wad.
And finally, for your information, I’m skinnier than Coulter and that’s the least of it. If I were to appear on your program, whether as a journalist, author, politician, or commentator, would you give me “bonus points” for my appearance, which you do not confer on men or less attractive women? The difference between Coulter and me is that while I would be insulted, she considers it just one more tool in her arsenal of dirty weapons.
You boor.
Friday, May 2
Actions have reactions. Lack of action has its consequences, too. The email below has been sent every weekday since January 17. That’s 15 weeks worth, or 75, emails. Put another way, the auto responses could literally paper one wall of my bedroom.
While I don’t pretend to know how the email is processed, whether it is handled by a college intern, a staff member with numerous other duties, a rotating group of people, or none of the above, what I do know is somebody is not doing his/her/their job. If he/she/they were, I would have an actual response by now (as opposed to the kneejerk nonresponse the computer spits out) if only to get rid of me. What I do know is that on January 17, 15 weeks ago today, I submitted a thoughtful, serious comment which, as of last night, not only has not been addressed but was further exacerbated by a repeat performance of the guest in question. Can you imagine how frustrating, infuriating, exasperating that is? Now further imagine that, in this viewer’s opinion, the guest in question is a one-woman self-hyping machine with no particular incentive to contribute to a debate but, on the contrary, merely draw attention to herself, and who, in this viewer’s opinion, therefore is worthy of no appearances in the media much less a forum provided by the brilliant and insightful Chris Matthews.
Now imagine me taking advantage of the fact that I record Hardball, at least affording me the opportunity – scratch that, reduced to the situation in which I feel I have no choice but to fast forward past every remark made by the guest in question on last night’s program, since I do highly regard Matthews and the other guest and am interested in their input. How hard is that? How desperate is that? How unpleasant is that, considering that in order to do so I’m confronted with sustained images of her smug mug? I’m here to tell you that editing one person’s remarks while taking pains to catch those of the other two is not fun. And imagine me wondering why is it, exactly, that this vitriolic charlatan whose latest editorial accused liberals of beating up on poor Sen. Santorum because Iraq lost its war (?!) and whose previous column suggested it’s perfectly acceptable that Franklin Graham convert the Iraqi savages to Christianity, is deemed an appropriate panelist on the otherwise astute Chris Matthews’ program. Does he read her asinine articles? Does he find her reasonable and for real? Or does he know full well she’s full of crap but a) she increases ratings, b) he likes her anyway, c) he can’t see her for what she is for the hormones clogging his brain, d) all of the above, e) some of the above, or f) none of the above. I DON’T KNOW because no one will reply to my 15-week-old email unless, of course, you count the “I can’t reply but sometimes I do!” gibberish, which I don’t.
Finally, imagine my outrage that the otherwise perceptive Matthews, without having offered some explanation for having the guest in question on his program 15 weeks ago, invites her back, thus implying an imprimatur of legitimacy on someone who couldn’t be more bogus. By “explanation” I don’t mean something I necessarily agree with, I don’t mean a justification, but something. Just something. Say something. Tell me anything. Choose one of the items from the multiple choice list I provided just to appease a loyal, faithful viewer. If you can’t imagine how I feel, try sending an email to Matthews yourself, then read what you get back, and imagine that’s all you’ve been getting for 15 weeks. If you’re satisfied, then you’re unpersuadable. But if you feel even the slightest tinge of aggravation, you are feeling 1/75th of what I feel.
You’re beginning to understand that the auto responses are worse than nothing; they are downright insulting. Oh, and one more thing. For Christmas I received copies of two Matthews books. I haven’t had time to open them yet. At this moment I don’t have the inclination either.
No No No No No. No Coulter. She is a one-woman, cynical, shock-and-awe practicing, dirty bomb. I have been watching your program since it was in its half hour format. I believe you owe me an explanation for her continuing appearances, which constitute tacit approval. Surely if she were a man you would have caught onto her long ago and banned her from ever doing so.
For a brilliant [editor’s note: actually, he was far from brilliant] man you have one huge blind spot.
Just signed up for your daily briefings. I am beyond alienated, way beyond insulted.
Loyal viewer now considering abandoning you in disgust,
Subject: I KEEP MY PROMISES
Here’s a preemptive warning. (That’s not redundant.) No, I repeat, no Coulter today, tomorrow, Friday, or anytime regarding the new book. Let’s just say it was covered on Scarborough, appropriately, and leave it at that.
This is your last notice. One more appearance and you lose the most faithful viewer the show has seen.
You got it half right: no, she’s anything but a terrific writer, and yes, she is a hypocrite. At least it was a tough interview. Nevertheless, she is a fraud, and as such deserves no publicity vis a vis your program.
Consider the following letter to the editor, published in my local paper, the State Journal-Register, 7/1 edition:
“COULTER COLUMN A MENACE TO CLEAR THINKING, REASON
Dear Editor,
Ann Coulter’s June 27 column is a dangerous attempt to change documented history for political persuasion. This column is such a collection of misinformation and extremism that it is a menace to clear thinking and reason. Any reader will notice that Coulter’s column was entirely void of hard facts or evidence. She cannot back up her claims about the virtues of Sen. Joseph McCarthy and the ‘liberal’ smear campaign against him, so she must resort to filling her column with opinions and remarkably inaccurate generalizations.
Coulter is defending McCarthy and his scare tactics because she has come to admire and employ such tactics herself in every column she throws together. It is offensive that Coulter has such a low expectation of the public intellect that she would expect readers to mindlessly absorb such hateful and dangerous rhetoric, without realizing it as such. After 9/ll, Coulter demanded that, as for U.S. policy toward the Muslim world, the U.S. should ‘invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert their populations to Christianity.’ If a terrorist is one who instills fear, stirs hatred and promotes extremism, perhaps people should distinguish Coulter from the community of columnists, and recognize her for what she truly is, and what she stands for.
Ty Solomon
Modesto (ILL)
This is just one example of many similar sentiments expressed by members of this mid-sized, midwestern community on a regular basis. It would appear many of us in the vast wasteland are somewhat more perceptive than you inside-the-beltway types. And no, I do not know nor have ever heard of Mr. Solomon.
LETTER TO THE EDITOR SPRINGFIELD, ILLINOIS STATE JOURNAL-REGISTER WED 7/2
Will Conservatives Let Coulter Speak for Them?
Dear Editor,
Ann Coulter’s latest mission is to resurrect the universally condemned and irrefutably pitiful image of Sen. Joe McCarthy by confusing the country’s genuine work of counter-espionage with bullying Hollywood writers into becoming tattle-tales, or sacrificing their careers. The fact that liberals everywhere will predictably respond with the outrage she craves is not my concern. My concern is that American conservatives will not distance themselves from her shameless extremism, and by their silence give the impression that she somehow represents their views. Conservatives, liberals and moderate Americans undeniably share certain values such as basic human dignity, fundamental fairness, quest for justice and civilized decorum. Coulter stands for none of these.
Her ever-escalating, hysterical publicity projects have come to be as predictable as the responses of indignation from her critics – rather like a dance. What’s missing is the voice of ‘the other’ conservatism, distancing itself from her fanaticism. Will conservatives now line up to join Coulter in presenting Joe McCarthy as real American hero, a victim of the ‘liberal’s bellicose campaign,’ will they refute it, or will they be quiet about it and hope it goes away? If they don’t speak up this time, don’t worry, she’ll raise the stakes and give them another chance.
Bill McKenzie
Springfield
Again, the disclaimer: don’t know this person. Again, the conclusion: outside-the-beltway perspective is far superior to that of an insider. And Tom, how long do you suppose it will take for the pendulum of public opinion to shift the other way?
ash
Subject: RE: At Least I'm Not Coulter or Matthewss' Blind Spot Just Got Larger
I find it very difficult, if not impossible, to believe that bull.... buster Caddell would consider Coulter a friend, much less a legitimate political opponent.
LETTER TO THE EDITOR FRI 8 22 03
Who’s the Real “Parasite”?
Letter writer Bill McKenzie was prescient in predicting that Ann Coulter would “raise the stakes” when no conservative stepped forward to repudiate her defense of the late, ungreat Sen. Joe McCarthy.
Now comes “parasites.” I have long ceased campaigning to end the State Journal-Register subsidization of Ms. Coulter vis a vis her weekly exercise in self-glorification, which in my mind qualifies her for parasitism. As for illegal Mexican immigrants in California – the “parasites” to whom she refers - whether or not they are “entitled” to share the American wealth is not an easy matter. What does seem clear is that a person who escapes a land of no opportunity to work in this country at a job no one else wants for wages too low to reach the tax-paying threshold and meanwhile speaks the language he knows, hardly is to be characterized as a freeloader.
Of course, for every immigrant, legal or illegal, there are countless huddled masses, tired and poor, in unstable Iraq, war-torn Liberia, ravaged Afghanistan, and numerous countries most Americans have never heard of, yearning to be free. While it may be too much to hope for peace in these countries within their lifetimes, much less refuge here, they can take heart in one consoling thought: at least they’re not Ann Coulter. At least they’re not this Wretched Refuse of a human being whose living is derived from preying upon the ignorance, resentment, and prejudices of her fans.
ash
Subject: SO SUE ME
Let me get this straight. You have time to reply to "Briefers" who seek the definition of a word and point out a grammatical error. But you don't have time to address - and get rid of - someone who has been emailing since mid-January on a serious issue regarding Hardball's guests. Didn't think I could feel more insulted than I already did. You've proved me wrong.
You sick wannabe.
Did you read her column? Is this a bad joke? If not, you’re fired. But first, tell Matthews to take his hormones to the same place you can take your non-explanations – below the belt. If he told Katrina on air how attractive she is, or Nora, or Victoria, or a host of other female commentators, they’d say “Thanks, but no ad hominems, even positive ones. Let’s get back to the subject.” That’s the difference between legitimate guests and mere exhibitionists.To Coulter, it IS the subject.
Did I say you’re fired? That means you’re wrong; she won’t be on tonight.
You'll be interested to know that Coulter will be [sic] tonight
-----Original Message-----
From: ash
Sent: Thursday, September 18, 2003 12:49 PM
To: 'Bellone, Dominic (NBC, MSNBC)'
Subject: RE: I Read Yours, Now You Read Mine
Are you serious? I email for eight months and this is how you respond, with a form letter barely more personal than the auto-version? That's almost more insulting than being ignored. As for your argument, you could have spent the time it took to blow me off with a brief "discussion on the merits" of this particular guest.
And as for continuing to watch/receive the briefings, I'm in the process of reevaluating the pros vs. cons. Chris may be brilliant and clever, most of the guests well worth watching, but so are other programs and venues with honorable hosts and staffs.
Tell me, if you can spare a moment, just who DOES "merit" a REAL reply? ash
-----Original Message-----
From: Bellone, Dominic (NBC, MSNBC) [mailto:
Sent: Thursday, September 18, 2003 10:49 AM
To: 'ash'
Subject: RE: I Read Yours, Now You Read Mine
ash, I appreciate your attention and passion for our show's editorial content...As you can understand we get hundreds of e-mails everyday so I'm unable to get into a discussion on the merits of each and every guest (I'd never be able to produce the show if I did!)...We're not surprised that Chris and our guests elicit a strong response from both the left, right and in between...I hope you'll continue to watch the show and read my Briefing ash...Thanks, Dominic
-----Original Message-----
From: ash
Sent: Wednesday, September 17, 2003 11:56 PM
To: Bellone, Dominic (NBC, MSNBC)
Subject: RE: I Read Yours, Now You Read Mine
I noticed there was no bulletin today. If you were too busy to post then I understand your not replying to me as well. This email will replace all previous ones until I hear from you. When you do respond, I ask that you refrain from using the words "opinion" and "disagree" in regard to Ms. Coulter. Ms. Coulter has no opinions (other than she should be, or already is, queen of the United States), while "disagree" presumes credibility, of which she has none.
By the way, I enjoy the "links," which must be one hell of an undertaking to assemble.
-----Original Message-----
From: ash
Sent: Tuesday, September 16, 2003 1:18 PM
To: 'Bellone, Dominic (NBC, MSNBC)'
Subject: RE: I Read Yours, Now You Read Mine
You can respond to the emails I've been sending Chris, every weekday, in various forms and quantities, since January 17th of this year. You can put yourself in my position, namely, of having, until this point, received not one actual reply, as opposed to the dismissive and frustrating autoresponses. You can ask the interns, or whoever screens the emails, what in the hell took so long to reach you, if not Chris himself. You can understand why, a month or so ago, I grew so disgusted I resorted to sending blasphemous emails, desperately seeking enough attention to trigger a response. You can read the email I sent today ("Let's Start Over...") following the original, way back in January, that began this miserable chain of messages, and send a thoughtful, honest explanation for a phenomenon I simply can't fathom on the part of the brilliant, otherwise perceptive Matthews, who, unless you correct my misinterpretation, I must conclude has too much testosterone stuck in his brain. And finally, you can patiently wade through this long preamble to the "good stuff" lest you read only that and disregard my venting after all this time of the insufferable autoresponses (the "sometimes" in "sometimes I do" apparently denotes "after 8 months of unceasing communication").
Whatever the reason, I'm ready to hear it. Even if it's something to the effect of "she gets ratings." Even if it means that while other talking head show hosts have banned her from their programs on principle, ratings be damned, Chris has no such integrity.
As if Chris needed further evidence that Ann Coulter is a self-aggrandizing, phony, disingenuous, incendiary, insidious, mentally disturbed, non-journalist, consider the following:
STATE JOURNAL-REGISTER SPRINGFIELD, ILLINOIS published 9 16 03
Coulter's Trash Talk Could Be In Al-jazeera
Dear Editor:
Ann Coulter's vitriolic trash talk (Sept. 12) hit a new low, even for her.
"Her trifecta: 1) She labels United Nations countries as 'swine.' 2) She calls the Marshall Plan that raised esteem for the United States to perhaps its highest standing in its history as 'a disastrous German occupation' and a losing model for post-war Iraq. 3) She ridicules concern for our servicemen in Iraq 'as soon as anyone in Iraq gets his hair mussed.'
"Good God, editors! Do you pay for this woman's vile garbage? It is more likely to be used as un-American ammunition by Al-Jazeera!
Burnell Heinecke
Springfield"
Note to Dominic: This letter, in response to the Coulter column published in our newspaper Friday, appeared the following Tuesday. Considering that the editorial page for the next 3 days (Saturday, Sunday, Monday) must be completed by end of work Friday, this letter was fast-tracked, published the soonest possible date.
But while many of us in fly-over, outside-the-beltway country caught onto Coulter long ago, Chris still merely "disagrees" with her, right? She's still a viable guest on his program. Would somebody, after EIGHT MONTHS of emails regarding this matter, please explain this to me?
ash still a viewer but hanging by a thread
There's more (a lot more), particularly as insult was added to injury with further Coulter appearances, but this should suffice.
-----Original Message-----
From: Bellone, Dominic (NBC, MSNBC) [mailto:
Sent: Tuesday, September 16, 2003 12:10 PM
To: 'ash'
Subject: RE: I Read Yours, Now You Read Mine
ash, what can I do for you?
-----Original Message-----
From: ash
September 15, 2003 5:36 PM
To: 'Hardball with Chris Matthews'
Subject: RE:I Read Yours, Now You Read Mine
Dominic, I've been emailing, every weekday without exception since
January 17, my complaints about Hardball. I have yet to receive but an
autoresponse. As I grow more frustrated and disenfranchised, they grow
more insulting and blasphemous. It's also a test of whether anyone has
read them. If anyone had, I would have been excommunicated by now.
Picture yourself in the same circumstances, and conclude as I have:
Surely you're not too busy to get rid of me.
This really sucks, Dominic, out here in impotent TV audience land. If you’re of a certain mindset your knee-jerk response will be: tough. I worked hard to get my position, to be a player with influence on the political scene. Apparently, you didn’t, so that’s your problem. But leave me out of it; I’ve got a show to produce.
Fair enough. But whether or not that is your reaction, it’s not the point (as Julian Epstein would, and does, say, much too often). You may get hundreds of emails daily, but I don’t have to be one of the interns or some other low-level employee NOT doing my job to realize they’re not of comparable weight. What’s the message? Who sent it? HOW MANY TIMES was it sent? Is it from a regular viewer or an occasional one? a fan or a detractor? How compelling is it? Should the autoresponse be adequate or does it warrant more attention in the form of a dignified reply addressing the issue in order to avoid alienating the viewer, lowering the ratings on the basis of which the show survives? Or are the ratings so high the disgruntled viewers are eminently dispensable?
Your flippant 12-word email announcing Coulter’s appearance achieved its intended purpose. It galled me. (At first I thought it was a prank, since Gephardt was featured in the promo. But Gephardt is a bigger “get” than Coulter, keeping me on alert.) My ethics dictate you don’t reward someone for malicious manipulation vis a vis outrageous proclamations and accusations, incoherent editorials and books full of lies and distortions. You don’t validate claims that Saddam was responsible for 9/11 (just as the administration admitted he wasn’t), liberals hate their own country, and McCarthy was a hero. Which begs the question: does Matthews read her columns? does he know full well she’s full of crap but makes her appearances on his program contingent on the agreement that she behave herself, that she mind her manners? I wouldn’t know. I can’t watch her anymore. She’s Dorian Gray. No, scratch that. To me her face is a gargoyle and her voice is the classic nail on the blackboard. He may think he has her on in order to challenge her but how do you effectively interrogate a dishonest broker?
I always tape Matthews, enabling me to replay anything particularly juicy as well as fast-forward past the interminable commercials. I used to take advantage of fast-forwarding past her comments in a segment while trying to catch what everyone else said. But since I’m no masochist that had to stop. Having the heads up last night (and I do appreciate that), I monitored the program as I recorded it. Block B, as you call it. I excised Block B. It worked. But it was almost more effort than it was worth. “Almost” is the operative word. It was like even though I managed to edit her out entirely, just knowing she was on contaminated the rest of the program. Just knowing he takes her seriously enough to invite her on, again and again, invokes the legal admonition “false in one, false in all.” Just knowing she comprised one segment, I watched the rest of them fall flat. Chris was good but he wasn’t as good. Not as sharp, not as tough, not as charming, not as spontaneous. No delicious, dead-on metaphors. No humorous intensity. Not the prototypical example of why Matthews is the best in the business.
If you’ve read this far you see my dilemma. If Coulter goes on Scarborough or Hannity and Colmes, that’s just fine. It’s where she belongs, not to mention I don’t watch them. If Larry King, the ultimate softball interviewer, decides she’s a ratings booster, that’s fine too. I skip that edition as I usually do anyway. Buchanan and Press? I watch them but I’ll live with excluding her and not complaining about it. But not Matthews. Matthews is my favorite. I take great pains never to miss Matthews. Matthews is the star of MSNBC primetime, the anchor among all anchors. Matthews has such clout that though the guys upstairs wanted him on at 9, he successfully bargained for the 7pm time slot (6 in my time zone), in order to go home that much earlier. Matthews gets to be the primetime anchor an hour before primetime.
I don’t want to drop Matthews, spiting myself in the process, as I am always loath to do. I hope last night’s poisoning effect doesn’t seep into subsequent airings of Hardball, which remains to be seen. Out here in TVland it is frustrating to be powerless, like a camcorder at a cocktail party (the title of one of my emails you undoubtedly haven’t read). And as a heterosexual woman, I got to tell you it’s annoying to watch him with some of the attractive women. Some of them. I still remember his gaga gaze at Bo Derek, with whom he played anything but Hardball. Lucky for her: she’s not smart enough to be on the program. Stunning women are all over the tube; he picks a few and gives them a free ride.
Nevertheless Matthews is king. It’s not even a close call. Which is why I wish to God you’d have given me something of substance to overlook Coulter, his Achilles heel, in order to continue watching.
Watched the CNBC rerun of Matthews syndicated last night specifically to see Klein. Was not worth it. Either he had an off appearance or somehow Paula Zahn is more conducive to creative, spontaneous thought. Maybe it’s because Zahn doesn’t press for instant clever soundbites.
Meanwhile it forced me to contend with Ingraham, who more than offset any insights forthcoming from Klein. Here’s a news flash: she’s not funny. Maybe on her radio show, which my market doesn’t offer, and where she’s no doubt reading off index cards, but not in any interview I’ve ever seen. Or maybe it’s my sense of humor that’s lacking. Haughtiness and condescension do not constitute amusing to me.
All of which produced a notion: Matthews et. al. ought to present the audience with a short bio of every guest, an abbreviated sense of why they take the positions they do. Margaret Carlson, for instance, whose defining moment was a mentally retarded brother. Presto: compassionate liberal. Coulter (and where is she, anyway, has she banned herself from the airwaves altogether lest other hosts point out her specific lies and general outrageousness?): Connecticut daughter of privilege, never mind that she could have been born an impoverished black boy in some big city ghetto, to cite the other extreme, as well as Conway, Jacoby, Ingraham, Peggy (prima dona) Noonan and so many other silly girls whose daddies treated them like princesses. Or Terry Jeffrey: high-voiced San Francisco native who barricades his homophobia with ultra-conservatism.
And what I call the “little pishers”: guys like Tucker and Rich Lowry and Ed (the Hyena) Gillespie, post-Baby Boomers with no historical perspective who honestly (and laughingly) wonder what all the populist fuss is about. Or, in contrast, Caddell, an aging hippie perpetual activist. Buchanan: let’s just make this a Catholic theocracy and get it over with. Them I size up easily. Who I don’t get a background on are Hitchens, Blankley (a descendent of royalty,perhaps?), Panetta and other older Clinton administration alumni, and the more occasional guests.
Enter Mario Cuomo. He was magnificent. Apparently Matthews thought so, too. Matthews appeared so in awe of him that he let the man talk at length, with virtually no interruptions. Cuomo more than delivered, which made for a compelling interview, particularly considering Matthews doesn’t do respectful silence. Poetry shattering the didactic prose. More “gravitas” guys like him should be on more often.
Which brings me to the briefings. I still get them, for the links, and yes, I do break my moratorium for brilliance personified guests like Cuomo. But there are too many links –even selectively ignoring some of them as to not be reading all day – and some of them are prohibitively annoying. (Note to self: avoid Noonan, Blankley and for that matter all things Washington Times [gay “marriage”? – how about Fox “News”? or tax “relief”?], since I already know what the other side thinks.) As for the tone, it continues to gall. We’re no more vicarious insiders for reading it than we are for watching the program. As for myself, as I sit here in Springfield, we’re-still-the-capital-no-matter-how-many-government-jobs-Blagojevich-moves-to-Chicago, Illinois, behind-the-scenes stories courtesy of Howard Fineman do not make me feel like a player. The bulletin is not a club. When Matthews “slices and dices” for its own sake, he only becomes more a parody of himself than is Darryl Hammond.
Just some stream of consciousness to puncture your busy Monday morning.
Regards,
ash
My favorite movie...is NOT "Terms of Endearment." In fact, I didn't like it much. But it did supply one of my favorite lines, a metaphor or shorthand for one of life's themes.
If you haven't seen it, let me set the stage. Shirley MacLaine's character is seated beside her bedridden, terminally ill daughter, portrayed by Debra Winger, relating some matter of relative frivolity, when Winger's character interrupts her. "I don't care, Ma," she snips, "I'm sick."
Great, huh? Literally or figuratively, it can apply to so many situations. Like the one I find myself in now. Though I do monitor Hardball for an occasional segment of interest (usually alerted by numerous promos, as opposed to your postings), I long since stopped watching it. Though the Bulletin links used to engage me, they've gradually become increasingly burdensome. Way too much redundancy, far too many aggravating columnists, some good ones I already get from my own collection of websites, smartass insider "Kerry insists on grape jelly on his pbandj sandwiches" (OK, I never actually read that but you get the point) magazine articles....I don't care, Ma, I'm sick.
And you! The gala DC events, your appearance on the program (which, contrary to your denial, was self-aggrandizement), the hip phraseology...I don't care, Ma, I'm sick. And my valuable time is limited.
As for Coulter, I don't need your verification that she is, indeed, persona non gratis. Speaking of whom, haven't noticed any links to her column lately. Here's a suggestion: since I'm about to cut you loose, and won't know the difference, why don't you include her latest piece slandering Richard Clarke (and, frankly, doing a pathetic job of it) in your next group email?
I won't care, Ma. I'll be too busy being sick.
ash
During the 2000 campaign season, Limbaugh (who I monitored at the time) asked listeners who they thought was more handsome – Bush or Gore.
They actually called in to answer the question. I tried to get through to reply, “That’s a bogus question.”
Now Chris asks Gen. Clark who he would rather hang out with, Bush or Kerry. I watched the segment because Clark was worth gritting my teeth through Chris. Or so I reasoned.
I was wrong.
ash
Wonder who Chris’ll have on tonight, to celebrate the life of RR. Noonan, no doubt. My nickname for her? Daisy, as in The Great Gatsby. “Her voice sounds like money.”
“He wrote so many of his own speeches, you know, it made my job easy. And he had such…uh…grand notions.” Won’t be subjecting myself to that tripe.
Yup, no slicin’ and dicin’ is my prediction. Leave the more dissecting scrutiny for after the eulogy and period of mourning. At least through the weekend ceremonies it’ll be the grandiose host paying tribute to the grandiose president. Grandiosity exponential.
Note to self: thank me for canceling the bulletin.
Nothing personal, of course. Your friend,
ash
It took a few days, and I waited a few longer for the aftermath of the equivalent of your guy’s Superbowl, so as Chris enters the denouement I reckon I’ve waited long enough. I’ve managed to contact Johnny, and he’s been gracious enough to respond to Chris’ request (on his weekend show) for a critique of Chris’ work. Here’s what Johnny told me:
“-first of all, learn the difference between “grand” and “grandiose”
-remember: you’re the interviewer. It’s not about you, but the guests. Actually, in your milieu, it’s about the issues
- tone down the volume. The panel comprises people who formulate eloquent language – or try to – for a living. If you can’t do so as well, your booming voice won’t compensate for your inadequacy.
- stop pointing at guests to indicate their turn to speak. Learn their names. Use them.
- stop gawking at female commentators you find attractive. As a comedian, it was part of my shtick. I was kidding. In your format you just look juvenile and ridiculous.
- for God’s sake, know when to get off the stage. It varies from host to host. My time came after 30 years. But I knew how to hold back and it served me well. In your case, I’m afraid you’ve worn yourself thin in far less time.
That’s it for now. If I think of anything else, I’ll have ash let you know.
Love, Johnny”
Dominic, now I’m speaking. As you may or may not be aware, Chris is a common target of the Media Matters website. Primarily, the threads document his skewed panels, on both of his programs. Can’t wait to see how it treats the one he had on during his first hour last night (didn’t stick around for the later editions). Which segueways nicely into my own advice: Chris, don’t afflict the afflicted. Taking potshots at the Dems – with no Dems represented – may be fun for a guy who loves to party with whichever party happens to be in power, but it’s lousy journalism and more to the point, it violates your self-proclaimed allegiance to Christianity, particularly of the Catholic persuasion.