Ann Coulter sez Single Moms are Evil

Ann Coulter's latest article is in praise of adoption, which I am also keen on, having been adopted. I do think adoption is a good solution to an unwanted pregnancy. But while half of it is nice stuff about how Adoption is good, the remaining half is about how bad single mothers are, culminating in this masterpiece of nastiness.

The plague of single motherhood isn't an inevitable decay brought on by stupid choices of the underclass. Destroying the family is the active social policy of liberals.

So much to unpack. This is why I don't read Ann Coulter anymore; it's exhausting.

First of all, note the mention of the "underclass." I wonder who Ann Coulter considers part of this "underclass?"

But more importantly is the idea that liberals want to destroy the family. I know this is orthodoxy in Ann Coulter's world; but if you believe it how can you stand to be around liberals in any sense of the word. I mean if the stuff Ann Coulter says is true, and it isn't, we Liberals deserve to be hated, scorned, and cast out. Possibly worse.

Trashing Goldwater

Ann Coulter's latest article is interesting because she takes the time to trash an icon of the right, Barry Goldwater. In contrasting him with Reagan, she calls him "abortion-loving Goldwater" and "gay-marriage-loving Goldwater." But that's not all.

Goldwater may have been a thorough-going right-winger on national defense, but -- unless L. Brent Bozell Jr. was writing it for him -- he never would have said this of the Soviets, as President Reagan did: "There is sin and evil in the world and we are enjoined by Scripture and the Lord Jesus to oppose it with all our might."

. . . Goldwater wasn't our guy; Reagan was.

Interesting. Of coures Barry Goldwater wasn't unelectable because he wasn't Christian enough. And Barry Goldwater's campaign pushed this country to the right, essentially setting up Reagan down the road. And certainly Reagan's assessment of Barry Goldwater was pretty positive.

You and I have a rendezvous with destiny. We will preserve for our children this, the last best hope of man on Earth, or we will sentence them to take the last step into a thousand years of darkness. We will keep in mind and remember that Barry Goldwater has faith in us. He has faith that you and I have the ability and the dignity and the right to make our own decisions and determine our own destiny.

That was from one of Reagan's most famous pre-presidential speeches (on behalf of Barry Goldwater).

Let's Check in with Ann Coulter

After all it's been ages since I did one of Ann's columns (almost a year). Lets check out her latest; how bad could it be?

Liberals say conservatives don't believe in civil rights. I say liberals are godless traitors. Why is one statement debatable and the other not?

. . . All liberals are atheists. Only the ones who have to stand for election even bother pretending to believe in God.

Not being acquainted with any actual Christians, they aren't particularly good bluffers.

Oh, now I remember why I don't bother with Ann Coulter. She's insane. She is, if she believes this stuff, certifiable. The larger question is why someone so clearly delusional is a prominent voice in the Conservative movement (although her star has been slipping for some time, she's still up there).

Alternatively she doesn't believe this stuff, but knows what her audience likes to hear. Which I have to admit is at least as likely.

Compare and Contrast

I will note at the top that both of these articles come from the Conservative website townhall.com.

Maybe Hasan is just a homicidal lunatic set to work by fevered demons inside his brain. But post-9/11, you can't be a killer who happens to be a Muslim. If you're a killer, it has to be because you're a Muslim.

Steve Chapman, "Muslims and Mass Murder"

According to witnesses, Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan entered a medical facility at Fort Hood, prayed briefly, then shouted "Allahu akbar" before he began gunning down American troops. Now I don't know which to be more afraid of: Muslims or government-run health care systems.

Ann Coulter, "Muslim Suffers Bruised Ego in Fort Hood Tragedy"

No one thinks "political correctness" obligates the Army to treat Muslims more leniently than anyone else. But it's just as simple-minded to think they deserve to be treated worse.

Steve Chapman

Despite being well aware of Hasan's disturbing views and conduct, the Army did nothing.

Far less offensive speech has been grounds for discipline or even removal from duties in the military.

Ann Coulter

The al-Qaida leader likes nothing better than to portray the United States as waging a crusade against Muslims. We would be doing ourselves no favor to confirm the accusation.

Steve Chapman

So, now any dyspeptic expression toward a Muslim is grounds for calling in a diversity coordinator. And when the "victim" attacks, as at Fort Hood, the rest of us are supposed to feel guilty because Hasan's car got keyed once.

This isn't perhaps a fair comparison. Anns main point, as it always is, is that Liberals are evil monsters. The Anti-Muslim stuff isn't her main point, but tangential. Still, it is nice to see that Townhall supports a diversity of views.

The Risk of Infection

Reading Ann Coulter's latest article, on the lies that liberals tell about Healthcare; getting into the spirit Ann Coulter doesn't play it exactly strait herself. She writes about the suggestion that illegal aliens will not be covered under the new plan and argues that, of course, they will be covered under the new plan. So Obama is lying when he says they won't be.

Of course Obama isn't lying; she merely restructured the question. President Obama is saying that the new plan isn't intended to cover illegal aliens. She pretends that that means Obama is guaranteeing that there will be no illegal aliens getting healthcare under this plan. Well, there's no way that Obama can guarantee that.

It's kind of like how Obama apparently promised that his election would end all racial divisiveness and then we still have racial divisiveness. The pretended promise is set so high as to be impossible for any mortal to live up to.

Then there is this bit.

Liberals never, ever drop a heinous idea; they just change the name. "Abortion" becomes "choice," "communist" becomes "progressive," "communist dictatorship" becomes "people's democratic republic" and "Nikita Khrushchev" becomes "Barack Obama."

It doesn't matter if liberals start calling national health care a "chocolate chip puppy" or "ice cream sunset" -- if the government is subsidizing it, then the government calls the shots.

Hence the title of this post; even the slightest move towards liberalism is, for Ann Coulter and many conservatoids, the equivalent of enacting the entire liberal/leftist/socialist/communist platform. Because then you see we have our foot in the door. You give us an inch and we'll destroy your whole society. Or such is the demented way many conservatives think.

Liberals are perhaps too willing to compromise (which is why the Public option seems to be dead) and conservatives are totally unwilling. Or, to put it another way, "The best lack all conviction, while the worst / Are full of passionate intensity."

History Moans

Ann Coulter's latest article (and lord why do I bother reading them) takes on history and historians, showing rabid and proud anti-intellectualism. Ann really despises historians; presumably because historians have to know something. To be Ann Coulter you just have to hate liberals. You have to really really hate liberals. And, this week at least, historians.

Being gracious winners, this week, liberals howled with delight at George Bush for coming in seventh-to-last in a historians' ranking of the presidents from best to worst.

This was pretty shocking. Most liberals can't even name seven U.S. presidents.

. . . So congratulations, George Bush! Whenever history professors rank you as one of the "worst" presidents, it's a good bet you were one of America's greatest.

I will admit that I think a reasoned analysis of George W. Bush's presidency isn't likely to have already happened. That said, 7th worst out of 44 sounds about right. I mean I'd have to see who they picked as worse than him (Nixon presumably, and a bunch of non-entities from the turn of the century).

Most of the article is wisely not spent defending George W. Bush; Ann presumably knows a lost cause when she sees it. Instead it's spent defending Ronald Reagan from Arthur Schlesinger. Which, I suppose, is sure to please Ann's readers (for whom Reagan's supreme greatness is a given).

She also takes shots at FDR (who was President during World War II) and JFK as being inferior Presidents.

Putting preposterously overrated presidents like John F. Kennedy or FDR in the same category as Reagan or Washington is like a teenage girl ranking the Jonas Brothers with the Rolling Stones and the Beatles as the three greatest bands of all time.

Ann Coulter is just a sad person at the end of the day. She's had her time in the limelight; but her brand of hatred and belligerence against liberals isn't going to play as well in the age of Obama.

Resuming Broadcasting

Sort of, anyway.

Work has been a bear the last couple of weeks, and other stresses have drained my energy to update this blog. That said it's Thursday and tomorrow I have jury duty so unlikely that I will post tomorrow. But I will try to post more over the next couple of days.

Ann Coulter's latest article has the happy upbeat title "Goodbye, America! It Was Fun While It Lasted." Well if it's America as Ann would like it, I guess I'm not to sad to see America go.

She's upset about the Stimulus Program which, in the rubric of the conservative movement right now, she describes as Socialist.

With the stimulus bill, liberals plan to move unfirable government workers into every activity in America, where they will superintend all aspects of our lives.

Also, thanks to the stimulus bill, the private sector will gradually shrivel and die. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the cost of servicing the bill's nearly trillion-dollar debt will shrink the economy within a decade.

Im sure a number of government employees would be surprised to know they are unfirable. But there it is; I'm not sure how these scare tactics are going to work for Ann, but her core audience is sure to be terrified.

Oh and getting a lot of spam so will be making random comments to push it off the list of spam comments.

Ann Coulter and the Culture of Victim Hood

For those who missed this; Ann Coulter was banned for life from appearing on NBC. Heard this last night during an interview between her and Sean Hannity. Oh and she appeared on NBC's Today Show this morning.

Yeah - they don't make lifetime bans the way they used to.

Ann Coulter's new book is on how Liberals claim to be victims but are really nasty and mean to conservatives instead. And she's proved it by whining repeatedly at how picked on she is.

For more on this story check out Media Matters.

Some poeple who seem to have heard of the Bush Doctrine

As pundits mull whether America's next target in the war on terrorism should be Iraq or a smaller quarry first – such as the Sudan or Somalia – it's time to consider another petri dish of ferocious anti-American hatred and terrorist activity. The Bush doctrine is: We are at war not only with the terrorists, but also with those who harbor them. We've got to attack France. Having exhausted itself in a spirited fight with the Nazis in the last war, France cannot work up the energy to oppose terrorism. For decades now, France has nurtured, coddled and funded Islamic terrorists.

Ann Coulter, "Attack France!", December 20, 2001.

They (meaning Democrats) deny Iraq is part of the war on terror, never mind that terrorists demonstrably disagree. Never mind that the Bush Doctrine clearly defines the enemy to include terrorist-sponsoring nations, like Saddam's Iraq.

David Limbaugh, "Plain lies, war lies and partisanship," September 1, 2006.

Victory in Iraq --the creation of a stable, functioning representative government protected by a strong Iraqi military capable of and committed to the suppression of terrorism and sectarian violence-- would be a vindication of the Bush Doctrine, and although it would also be in the very best interests of the country as a whole, the left sees a political disaster in such an outcome, and has hence redoubled its efforts to tarnish not just the president who ordered the war, but also the generals who lead it, and the soldiers who fight it.

Hugh Hewitt, "When General Petraus Reports," July 27, 2007

As the war in Iraq ground slowly on, Bush supporters grew more and more timid and pettifogging. What was missing was a full-throated, unequivocal, intellectually sparkling defense of the Bush Doctrine.

It is missing no more.

Mona Charen, "The Podhoretz Cavalry," September 21, 2007.

The Bush democracy crusade was put on the shelf after producing election triumphs for Hamas, Hezbollah and the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt. And the Bush Doctrine of preventive war, after Iraq, appears to be headed there, as well.

Patrick J. Buchanan, "Is Bush Becoming Irrelevant?", May 30, 2008

In conversations I've had with past Pentagon colleagues as well as some of the current crop, a recurring worry has been relayed to me. It is this: If Barack Obama wins the White House, what happens to the Bush doctrine of basically killing these terrorists where they stand?

Douglas MacKinnon, "Only YOU Can Stop the Hate-Driven Far-Left and... Save Your Country", September 3, 2008.

I'm Down

But not for the reasons Ann Coulter suggests in her latest article.

Morose that there hasn't been another terrorist attack on American soil for seven long years, liberals were ecstatic when Hurricane Gustav was headed toward New Orleans during the Republican National Convention last week.

Honest to god, if you really believed Liberals are disappointed that terrorists haven't managed to kill more Americans in the last 7 years, what are the implications of that belief? Why are you willing to go on TV with liberals? I mean if they are that crazed, that traitorous, why? If you believe that they are waiting for, praying for, more deaths, how do you restrain yourself from socking them?

Unless you don't really believe it and are engaging in some hypothetical exaggeration to make a point about, well, about how crazy and traitorous liberals are.

Anyway the rest of her article illustrates what I was talking about earlier; Republicans think the Bush years have been totally successful and don't get why they have to run against his record now. Most Conservatives live close enough to reality that they accept that they have to. Coulter, blissfully off in la la land, does not.

There's Nothing Left to Say

Ann Coulter's latest column compares Barack Obama's book, "Dreams from my Father" to Mien Kampf.

Has anybody read this book? Inasmuch as the book reveals Obama to be a flabbergasting lunatic, I gather the answer is no. Obama is about to be our next president: You might want to take a peek. If only people had read "Mein Kampf" ...

At this point, it's important to point out that Ann Coulter is a lone lunatic who's antics do not relate to the millions of fine upstanding Republicans who buy her books and keep her on TV. Beyond that, what else can you say? Ann Coulter is desperate; whatever they try to convince themselves, they know that both Obama and Clinton are strong candidates and their guy has an up hill struggle ahead of him.

Is Ann Coulter Still Insane?

You be the judge. Here's some lines from her latest article.

A few more primary wins and B. Hussein Obama will be able to light up a cigarette during a televised speech and still get the nomination. It looks like the only thing that can stop him now is an endorsement from Al Gore.

Gore is always lunging into a movement just as it has passed its prime -- the Internet, Howard Dean, global warming, trying to talk black when he campaigns at a black church. He probably bought a big house a few months ago. Gore is such a supremely unlikable human being, he even subverted the mainstream media's affection for liberalism during the 2000 election.

Yeah, I don't think Ann Coulter is seeing the same world as the rest of us. Certainly Al Gore has become a lot more popular since his character was trashed unfairly and deceptively in 2000. Oh and in case you are wondering she's no fan of McCain.

McCain is hysterical about pouring water down terrorists' noses and campaigns to shut down Guantanamo.

I should not at this point, that the fact that Ann Coulter does not support John McCain does not make McCain some kind of liberal or acceptable presidential candidate; recall that when it comes to occupying Iraq, getting thousands of American troops killed and millions of Iraqis killed, well McCain is as big a fan of that strategy as President Bush. Maybe bigger.

Book Review

Over at Pop Matters some poor soul (Barry Lenser) has read Ann Coulters latest work, and written a review of it. Since he agrees with my analysis of Ann Coulter, namely that she's mostly in favor of making money for herself, I agree with him.

That said, he does make some comments on the thin line between humor and analysis that she gleefully dances over and back.

Is she a jokester or a serious observer of politics? Perhaps a satirist? When, if ever, should her words be accepted at face value? In her newest book’s chapter on the manipulation of language, Coulter admonishes that “you’d have to be either retarded or work for the Soviet thought police not to understand that much of what I say is a joke”. Despite the patina of self-definition here, she’s still hedging on the issue. “Much” is hopelessly vague, and probably with good reason. At her convenience, Coulter can simply deploy the defense that “It was just a joke” while the joke in question still gets its essential message across.

Not that the proudly shameless Coulter minds the umbrage. But her apologists often end up in a problematic spot: how to defend words and a personality so erratic and undefined.

It's an interesting conundrum. I don't know too many Coulter defenders, but those who I see are usually defending her in the most generic terms.

Mike Huckabee and Ann Coulter

I will note that one of our readers likes Mike Huckabee; at least compared to other Republicans Running. After reading this article, I'm inclined to look at him a little more positively myself.

He [Huckabee] responded to my column last week -- pointing out that he is on record supporting the Supreme Court's sodomy-is-a-constitutional-right decision -- by saying that he was relying on the word of a caller to his radio show and didn't know the details of the case. Ironically, that's how most people feel about sodomy: They support it until they hear the details.

I find this story interesting. And somewhat reprehensible on both sides of the fence. Ann Coulter is reprehensible for wanting to criminalize Sodomy and Homosexuality. And Huckabee is reprehensible for not standing up to her; but basically saying he didn't understand. So apparently he agrees with Ann that homosexuality should be a crime?

On second thought; the fact that Ann Coulter is attacking him makes me think he must be ok; but the fact that he basically bends over and agrees with her attacks makes me think he's a punk.

Well I'm off to shoot myself in the head

I made the mistake of looking at one of Ann Coulter's recent columns.

The October 2007 Vanity Fair had a long, gaseous article explaining how the pro-Bush bias of the mainstream media cost Al Gore the 2000 presidential election. (For you kids out there too young to remember, Al Gore is a vaguely gay, morbidly obese former Clinton administration official who raised campaign cash from Buddhist monks and claimed he invented the Internet.)

The general thrust of her article is that we liberals should leave Joe McCarthy alone; because anybody critical of McCarthy must be a stinking liberal.

Ann Coulter's Personal Fantasys

According to The Carpetbagger.

If we took away women’s right to vote, we’d never have to worry about another Democrat president. It’s kind of a pipe dream, it’s a personal fantasy of mine, but I don’t think it’s going to happen.

So good day for Conservative principles.

Ann Coulter - Angry and Incoherent

Ann wants to make two points about the Craig situation in her latest article.

Democrats are hypocrites and homophobes for going after Larry Craig

Larry Craig, being gay, deserves to be gone after.

Hard to finesse those two positions? Not if you harness the awesome power of incoherency.

Despite the 9/11-level coverage, Larry Craig is merely accused of "cruising while Republican." There is nothing liberals love more than gay-baiting, which they disguise as an attack on "hypocrisy."

. . . And why is it "homophobic" for Senate Republicans to look askance at sex in public bathrooms? Is the Times claiming that sodomy in public bathrooms is the essence of being gay? I thought gays just wanted to get married to one another and settle down in the suburbs so they could visit each other in the hospital.

Her article is pretty blatant about rewriting this story so as to cast the Democrats as the actors. In fact it was Republican after Republican who called for Craig to resign. Democrats noted the discrepancy in how Republicans treated David Vitter, also caught in a sex scandal, but in a state with a Democratic Governor and Craig, who would be replaced by a Republican Governor. But the chief thrust to get rid of Craig came from Republicans. Ann delicately brushes them out of her picture. In her recount of the story, it seems like the Republicans didn't really do anything at all in response to Craig.

But then again, life is simple for someone like Ann Coulter - just remember that Democrats are evil and all of life's questions are pretty easy to answer. And that is, I suppose, a kind of coherency.

Ann Coulter Pulls Back the Fox News Curtain

Ann Coulter's latest article is on the Democratic CNN/YouTube debate, and it's not very good. Mostly it's about how Barack Obama claims to have had a hard time getting a cab in New York City, and that's probably a lie (because Guiliani fixed that problem, apparently. But it's the first paragraph of the article that I find most revealing.

Fox News ought to buy a copy of Monday's Democrat debate on CNN to play over and over during the general election campaign. For now, the Democratic candidates need to appeal only to their nut-base. So on Monday night, the candidates casually spouted liberal conspiracy theories that would frighten normal Americans, but are guaranteed to warm the hearts of losers blogging from their mother's basements.

For the record, I am not blogging from my mother's basement, which would be quite a feat in more ways than one.

For another, doesn't this make it clear, for those with any doubts, whose side Fox News is on?

Ann Coulter and Chris Matthews

It's amusing to watch Matthews self flagellation over his very lucrative interview with Ann Coulter - and if you've missed this, Media Matters has helpfully provided a recap of his fandango.

Ann Coulter, the name of the book is Godless. We have sold a lot of her books tonight. I don't know if I can go to confession fast enough. We will be right back tomorrow night with more Hardball. Thank you.

I like Matthew's theory that the fact that Ann Coulter sells books justifies it. I also like how Matthew's seems to admire her nastiness - presumably he sees it as a form of manliness and toughness. And Matthews is big on (conservatives) Manliness and Toughness.

Your Weekly Rush - Ann Coulter and Elizabeth Edwards

It won't surprise you to find out that Rush Limbaugh is more or less on Ann's side in this whole kerfluffle. He accuses Edwards of putting his wife up to it and hiding behind her skirts, proving again what a classy and well-informed guy he is. Ms. Elizabeth Edwards in the interview denied having talked to her husband before calling, and you can guess who I find more believable, Limbaugh or Elizabeth Edwards.

Another non-surprising thing; this whole event turns out to be another assault on Rush Limbaugh, who has to put himself at the center of nearly every issue that comes along.

Now, what's going on here is obvious, is it not? This is just as I had a caller the other day, you are responsible for the Hispanics in this country not voting Republican, you're mean, you're not nice, and you're hateful rhetoric, and is this the same thing now. In fact, I think this has Fairness Doctrine implications. I think that this attitude from Elizabeth Edwards, you're too mean, you need to stop saying things the way you are saying them.

Apparently Limbaugh feels, like Coulter, if he had to keep his commentary within the boundaries of common decency, he'd have nothing to say.