Archive for ‘Ann Coulter’

August 8, 2009

Coulter In the House!

Just ducked out of a speech by Ann Coulter here at the YAF National Conservative Student Conference, so I could report her opening line: “I’d like to thank the pharmaceutical industry for putting together this fake audience for me.”

Actually, the audience is real — and it’s spectacular! Coulter also said that, thanks to the Obama administration, now every ballerina can grow up to be White House chief of staff.

Will update later . . .

UPDATE: Now it’s Q&A time, where Ann has — in the past — caused controversy.

UPDATE II: Understand that the last-night dinner at the YAF conference is a big deal, and the young ladies get all dolled up for it. Some of them are dressed in a manner that might best be described as . . . well, Coulteresque.

OK, so a platinum blonde in a zebra-striped dress just asked Ann whether she would advise attending law school, as Coulter herself did.

“Do not go to law school,” replies Ann. “Encourage liberals to go to law school. It’s a complete waste of time.”

Coulter said the only caveat is, it’s OK to go to law school if you actually want to practice law. But if you”re just a recent college graduate who doesn’t know what to do next, the “Oh, I guess I’ll just go to law school” route is a waste of time, she said.

BTW, Coulter was introduced tonight by Ramapo College senior Lauren Scirocco, who was recently interviewed in Time magazine:

I really like Sarah Palin. I think as a conservative woman, I can really relate to her. . . . Conservatives feel like she’s someone they can relate to and believe in. Liberals vilify her and make fun of her constantly, and I think that’s because they’re afraid of her and know she’s going to be there in the future. She’s not going away.

BTW, Miss Scirocco’s dress tonight is . . . Coultersque.

UPDATE III: Just met Robert Vernon Myers III, a recent graduate of Florida International University, and had the opportunity to introduce him to Regis Giles, daughter of popular conservative commentator Doug Giles. Young Miss Giles’ black dress tonight is . . . Coulteresque.

UPDATE IV: Speaking of Coulteresque . . .

At left is A.J. Dobson of Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University, who just had his book signed by Ann Coulter. I jokingly suggested Ann should write her personal cell number under her autograph, but that wouldn’t be Coultersque. That would be . . . Cougaresque.

Speaking of bad jokes, remember Jesse Griffin? Miss Coulter told me, “You’ve been doing some great work lately.” She said she had seen the reports that Dan Riehl and I had done about the anti-Palin blogger “Gryphen.” BTW, just noticed that story’s been linked by Pamela Geller at Atlas Shrugs, and meanwhile Dan Riehl has the latest on Jesse.

UPDATE V: To the commenter who asked: Yes, Mrs. Other McCain knows where I am. And she also knows I’ll be at the private after-party at an undisclosed location. Mrs. Other McCain has been putting up with my bad jokes for 20 years.

And so, folks . . . on to the after-party!

UPDATE VI: by Smitty
Stacy reports, from an undisclosed location, that at 2300 Eastern, an Coulter ate a cheese-fry. Additionally, she is partaking of a margarita on the rocks for her beverage. This is offered in direct rebuke of the lefties who claim she’s a succubus.

UPDATE VII: by Smitty
Via Town Hall, the monologue.

July 24, 2009

Best. Column. Evah!

Never underestimate the power of Rule 2:

Last week, I called the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) to press [“science czar” John] Holdren on his views about forced abortions and mass sterilizations; his purported disavowal of Ecoscience, the 1977 book he co-authored with population control zealots Paul and Anne Ehrlich; and his continued embrace of forced-abortion advocate and eugenics guru Harrison Brown, whom he credits with inspiring him to become a scientist.
After investigative bloggers and this column reprinted extensive excerpts from Ecoscience, which mused openly about putting sterilants in the water supply to make women infertile and engineering society by taking away babies from undesirables and subjecting them to government-mandated abortions, the White House issued a statement from Holdren last week denying he embraced those proposals. The Ehrlichs challenged critics to read their and Holdren’s more recent research and works. . . .
In 2007, he addressed the American Association for the Advancement of Science conference. Holdren served as AAAS president; the organization posted his full slide presentation on its website.
In the opening slide, Holdren admitted that his “preoccupation” with apocalyptic matters such as “the rates at which people breed” was a lifelong obsession spurred by scientist Harrison Brown’s work. . . .

Read the whole thing. This is a healthy competition among columnists that should be encouraged. Ann Coulter and Mark Steyn have linked me from their sites in the past, but they ain’t been linking me lately. Despite the lack of recent linkage, however, Ann Coulter’s take on the “health care crisis” is brilliant:

Insurance plans that force everyone in the plan to pay for everyone else’s Viagra and anti-anxiety pills are already completely unfair to people who rarely go to the doctor. It’s like being forced to share gas bills with a long-haul trucker or a restaurant bill with Michael Moore. On the other hand, it’s a great deal for any lonely hypochondriacs in the plan.

Read the whole thing, because she’s exactly right. I hate going to the doctor. I hate taking medicine. If my aortic valve blows out tomorrow, don’t mourn this as “tragic” or “senseless.” Such a mercifully sudden departure from this vale of tears would to me be infinitely preferable to the ordeal of filing out an insurance form and spending 15 minutes in the waiting room of a doctor’s office, to say nothing of idling around a drugstore while I wait for the pharmacist to fill my prescription.

Think about this: The percentage of your life spent leafing through a three-week-old copy of Newsweek in a doctor’s waiting room — is that really “life” at all? We’re all gonna die some day, but some of us actually try to live first. And that otherwise healthy idiot who chooses to waste his life shuttling back and forth between MRI screenings, cardiac stress tests, colonoscopy appointments and the Rite Aid prescription counter isn’t practicing “preventive medicine.” He’s just running up the bill at someone else’s expense, like when I go to a Reason happy hour and tell the bartender to put everything on Matt Welch’s tab.

Have you ever known one of those “lonely hypochondriacs” of whom Coulter speaks? Talk about your persuasive arguments for euthanasia! Feeble neurasthenics who run to the doctor every time they get an ache or pain should be sent directly to the Soylent Green factory.

Honestly, I knew America was doomed when they announced that Medicare would pay for Viagra. Oh, just great: The Federal Bureau of Boners.

Patriots died of frostbite at Valley Forge so that we could tax nurses to pay for their geriatric patients to get aroused. Ask the staff at the “retirement center” about the septuagenarian whose idea of a joke is to take his little blue pill and hit the nurse-call button.

Nurse: “Is there a problem?”
Patient: (Exposing himself) “Yes, ma’am, I had this sudden swelling . . .”

But why bring John McCain into this? My point was that health care is not a right, no matter what Ted Kennedy says. “Health care as a right, not a privilege,” says Ted. (Mary Jo Kopechne could not be reached for comment.)

My real point, however, is this: Ann Coulter should link me more often. But did I really need to say that?

UPDATE: Speaking of The Rules, how about ObamaCare bashing from a sexy redhead in her underwear? Say what you will about Rule 5, if sexy chicks can save us from socialized medicine . . . well, it’s a sacrifice we’ll have to make. Freedom is never free!

June 17, 2009

Ann Coulter’s favorite lesbian

Today I was checking SiteMeter and noticed traffic from Ann Coulter’s Web site, and when I checked:

June 17, 2009, 1:50 AM
Cynthia Yockey’s Campaign to get David Letterman Fired
Dave has pissed off the wrong lesbian
Crowds Line Up to Protest “Pervert” David Letterman in New York
Your handy ‘Fire David Letterman’ Kit, Part Two

So now Cynthia can claim the title of Ann Coulter’s favorite lesbian. Hey, I’m already Ann’s favorite McCain.

And speaking of pissed-off people . . .

May 26, 2009

Hayekian, Reaganite or Texan?Essay on the Arrogance of the Elite

“It is just mind-boggling how some people think that an M.A. or a Ph.D. is somehow a bestowal of omniscience. . . . So why is it that so many academics believe that their word is final when it comes to anything and everything under the sun? As an academic myself, I can answer that question with one word: arrogance.”
Mike LaRoche, May 23, 2009

“The typical intellectual . . . need not possess special knowledge of anything in particular, nor need he even be particularly intelligent, to perform his role as intermediary in the spreading of ideas. What qualifies him for his job is the wide range of subjects on which he can readily talk and write, and a position or habits through which he becomes acquainted with new ideas sooner than those to whom he addresses himself.”
Friedrich Hayek, 1949

When I use “intellectual” and “elite” as putdowns, it is a Hayek’s conception of modern intellectuals as “secondhand dealers in ideas” that informs my disdain. The arrogance of their presumed omniscience, as Mike LaRoche says, is what renders them obnoxious.

Thomas Sowell (who far outranks me as a “top Hayekian public intellectual”) describes the liberal worldview as The Vision of the Anointed, a book that every conservative ought to read, re-read, and continue re-reading until it is thoroughly understood, if not indeed memorized.

When speaking about liberal bias in the media, I sometimes explain to conservative audiences what should need no explaining: The media elite hate you.

They hate you with a thoroughgoing contempt you cannot begin to comprehend. They hate everything you believe in and everything you stand for, and until you understand why they hate you, no defense against their hatred is possible.

The reason the elite hate you is because of your failure to acknowledge their superiority. What the elite cherish, above all else, is prestige. By questioning the truth of the elite’s belief, you deny their superiority and deprive them of prestige.

Have you ever wondered why evolutionists are so vehement in denouncing creationists? Among the elite, one cannot gain prestige by advocating biblical truth, creation ex nihilo as an expression of the transcendent soveignty of the Almighty.

If the Bible is true, then the elite are fools. To admit the possibility that “in the beginning was the Word,” is to suggest that Richard Dawkins is the intellectual inferior of the holy roller shouting hallelujahs at the Pentacostal revival in the hollows of eastern Kentucky.

Your Christian faith therefore is an insult to the elite, an attack upon their precious prestige, an invitation to whatever evil word or deed the elite employ against you. Creationism is a threat to the elite in the same way that the Ukrainian kulak was a threat to the Soviet revolution, or as Albert Einstein’s genius was a threat to Hitler’s vision of Aryan supremacy.

As the Marxist would say, those analogies are no accident, comrade.

“[E]very scholar can probably name several instances from his field of men who have undeservedly achieved a popular reputation as great scientists solely because they hold what the intellectuals regard as ‘progressive’ political views; but I have yet to come across a single instance where such a scientific pseudo-reputation has been bestowed for political reason on a scholar of more conservative leanings.”
Friedrich Hayek, 1949

For all that we are told about the need for conservatives to come up with “new ideas,” it is amazing how little the situation has changed in the six decades since Hayek wrote “Socialism and the Intellectuals.” Even the Nobel Prize (which Hayek won in 1974) has been tainted by being recently awarded to Al Gore and Paul Krugman.

The prestige enjoyed by Dawkins, Gore and Krugman is denied to Michael Behe, to Steven Hayward, to Thomas Sowell. To protect their status, the elite must deny prestige to their critics and it is this monopolization of prestige — not the pursuit or dissemination of sturdy truth — that eventually becomes the chief occupation as they seek to defend their supremacy against rivals.

You need not be an intellectual to understand this. Anyone who has ever worked in a dysfunctional office under an incompetent manager knows how this game is played. The manager has attained his position by deceiving his superiors into believing he is competent, and the object of the manager’s manipulations is to prevent the discovery that he doesn’t know how to do his job.

In this situation, the incompetent manager will:

  • Routinely take credit for the achievements of others;
  • Identify as enemies the most intelligent and competent of his underlings, since they are most aware of his ineptitude and most likely to benefit from his downfall;
  • Attempt by favoritism toward sycophants to create a Praetorian Guard to defend himself against criticism; and
  • Attribute all failures to scapegoats or circumstances beyond his control.

If you’ve ever been in the kind of toxic work environment where office politics is a bloodsport, then you understand how ambitious frauds can ascend to dominance, especially in environments where quantitative and qualitative measures of individual output are difficult to obtain.

This is one reason every bright, industrious student abhors the “group project” method that became vogue among progressive educators in the 1970s. Five students are assigned to the project, one or two do all the real work, sharing their grade with the slugs and dullards.

Students of Nicco Machiavelli, Antonio Gramsci or James Burnham equally understand how the organizational structure of institutions favor or disfavor various types of personalities and various means of advancement within those institutions.

Again, to borrow the Marxist’s maxim, it is no accident that incompetent backstabbers flock toward careers in academia. Who is to say whether one professor of women’s studies is superior to another? What are the criteria by which a dean chooses a new chairman for the sociology department? Now that Ph.D.’s in history, psychology and similar disciplines so vastly exceed the number of available tenure-track positions, the business of hiring and promoting in those fields has become notoriously arbitrary and politicized.

Academia is remote from the direct input of markets, and such is the prestige of elite institutions (e.g., the Ivy League schools) that the hiring process at Columbia or Yale can never affect the success and prosperity of those institutions unless — as in the notable case of Lawrence Summers at Harvard — they accidentally hire someone with the effrontery to criticize the elite’s belief system.

Yet it is a mistake to suppose that this sort of elitism exists only in academia or that elitism is only a problem among liberals.

“This is the issue of this election: whether we believe in our capacity for self-government or whether we abandon the American revolution and confess that a little intellectual elite in a far-distant capitol can plan our lives for us better than we can plan them ourselves.”
Ronald Reagan, 1964

As with Hayek, so with Reagan, one of Hayek’s most successful admirers. Isn’t it amazing how little things have changed? Truth is a sturdy thing and human nature is a constant factor in the equation, so that the elite always strive to impose their will, and the free man always struggles to resist.

If Reagan sneered at the elite, was he a “populist”? If he used “intellectual” as an epithet, did this make him “anti-intellectual”? No, he was merely expressing the Hayekian insight: Knowledge is so scattered among the population that, in the universe of facts, no one — no professor, no pundit, no politician — can ever have all the facts or claim such a superiority of knowledge that he qualifies to be an “expert” dictating the ordinary affairs of others.

That such arrogant presumptions of expertise are common among intellectuals is as obvious to me and Mike LaRoche as it was to Reagan and Hayek. And that those we might broadly descibe as the ruling class in Washington constitute an elite is self-evident. Reagan was therefore speaking of a real problem in American political life.

Having dealt with this intellectual elite in Washington for more than a decade, I know their habits and attitudes quite well. They habitually presume to know things they do not know, and react with hostility to anyone who questions their presumptions.

Ross Douthat, whose father is a successful attorney, grew up in New Haven, Conn., attended Hamden Hall Country Day School (tuition: $26K/yr.), graduated from Harvard University (tuition $32K/yr.), and married one of his Harvard classmates.

And the title of Douthat’s most recent book? Grand New Party: How Republicans Can Win the Working Class and Save the American Dream.

Douthat might be competent to suggest how Republicans can win the alumni of Hamden Hall and save the Harvard dream, but his only qualification to speak for the working class is the ubiquitous arrogance of the intellectual elite.

“You look back in the earlier times, there were no opportunities, so there were no opportunists. . . . Later on, you have all these people who figure it’s probably a pretty good political thing to do. And so they start talking about being conservative when they’re running [for office], but they really aren’t. So when they get to Congress or wherever they go, they’re pretty easily dissuaded.”
Al Regnery, The American Spectator

Douthat is the answer to a question that has long puzzled conservatives. When I abandoned the Democratic Party in the mid-1990s (hint: “From My Cold Dead Hands!”), one of the first things I discovered was that grassroots conservatives were perpetually peeved by the ineffectiveness of Republicans in Washington.

Living in northwest Georgia (Bob Barr’s district 1995-2003) this grassroots discontent was palpable. After I moved to Washington, I’d sometimes see people roll their eyes at any mention of Barr, whom even most conservatives in D.C. considered a reckless firebrand. I’d always tell them, “Man, if you think Bob’s an extremist, you ought to meet his constituents!”

The guy in charge of IT at the newspaper I worked for in Georgia was a federal licensed firearms dealer who used to tell me, “Hey, if you ever want to shoot a machine gun, just let me know.” Another grassroots leader among Republicans, the wife of a county judge, was also the head of the local Eagle Forum and an activist for the John Birch Society.

Bob Barr never could have been elected without the support of people like that, and if you believe in representative government, then it was Bob’s job to represent those people.

And that was my job, too. In 1997, I left Georgia to join the staff of the Washington Times, but not before all my conservative friends down home had thoroughly warned me not to forget where I came from. So it was that I came to Washington with a two-fold mission.

First, I would attempt to represent accurately the essential decency of the good folks I’d left behind — hard-working, God-fearing, patriotic and self-sufficient. If there is one belief that the elite never doubt for a minute, it is that the average citizen of Floyd County, Georgia, is demonstrably inferior to the average citizen of Chicago, Boston or San Francisco.

Bullshit. Want to argue, Harvard boy?

My second mission in Washington was to discover why the Republican Party failed so miserably to advance the kind of agenda that grassroots conservatives believed they were voting for. It took me many years to understand this, and the answer is complex, but it is also as simple as two words: Ross Douthat.

Well, the liberals had their intellectual elite, you see, and so conservatives decided they needed to get them one, too. Given the natural assumption that the finest minds in America had all been scooped up by the elite schools, there soon developed an intellectual superstructure in Washington of think-tank wonks, policy analysts, political advisers and journalists who came from the same elite background, and had attended the same elite institutions, as the liberal elite.

OK, fine. Let us match Ph.D. to Ph.D., expert to expert, in a sort of intellectual equivalent of the Harvard-Yale game. But while the liberal elite were directly and constantly associating with the liberals whose beliefs it was their job to translate into policy, the conservative elite were generally isolated from the kind of people whose beliefs they were representing.

The Democrat in Brooklyn may resent the arrogance of the Columbia University graduate who specializes in urban policy for the Brookings Institute, but the Brookings specialist is not immersed in an environment where that Brooklyn Democrat is sneered at contemptuously, the way a policy wonk at the American Enterprise Institute sneers as the constituents of the typical Republican congressman.

Whatever their differences in terms of policy, the Brookings wonk and the AEI wonk share the elite belief that the typical Brooklyn Democrat is somehow superior to the typical Georgia Republican. And from that shared belief — which I assure you is well-nigh universal among the intellectual elite in Washington — emanates the great divide between the Republican elite in Washington and the rank-and-file of the GOP.

The Republican elite is ashamed of its constituents in a way that the Democratic elite is not. Therefore, Democrats fight ferociously for their agenda in a way that Republicans seldom do.

The Republican elite in Washington crave prestige, you see, and they cannot gain prestige by sticking up for the typical GOP voter in Tucson, Tulsa, Tampa or Tulllahoma. You cannot become one of The Republicans Who Really Matter by defending Ann Coulter or Rush Limbaugh. No one can impress his friends at a Georgetown cocktail party by saying nice things about Sarah Palin or Joe the Plumber. No one in the D.C. elite — whether Republican or Democrat — can ever advance his career by quoting Michelle Malkin or Mark Levin.

You see why not only do Republican elites fail to defend their own party’s constituents, but they viciously attack anyone who attempts to represent the core beliefs of the conservative grassroots. Because if Michelle Malkin is a conservative, then David Brooks is not, and it is only his status as token “conservative” that assures Brooks of membership in the elite. If Brooks were just another liberal Democrat, after all, the New York Times already has plenty of those from which to choose.

So when you see some “conservative” sneering at Rush Limbaugh or mocking the Tea Party movement — what you are witnessing is the effort of elitists to signal to their fellow elitists that they are in on the joke, that they don’t take seriously the core values of grassroots types like Joe the Plumber.

“Even where the direction of policy is in the hands of men of affairs of different views, the execution of policy will in general be in the hands of intellectuals, and it is frequently the decision on the detail which determines the net effect. We find this illustrated in almost all fields of contemporary society. Newspapers in ‘capitalist’ ownership, universities presided over by ‘reactionary’ governing bodies, broadcasting systems owned by conservative governments, have all been known to influence public opinion in the direction of socialism, because this was the conviction of the personnel.”
Friedrich Hayek, 1949

What Hayek says here can be applied equally, you see, to the Republican Party and the various institutions of the conservative movement. If the think-tank wonks, the congressional staffers and the writers for conservative journals believe in same-sex marriage, global warming or universal health care, efforts to employ those institutions on behalf of contrary opinions will not be as effective as if those efforts were conducted by personnel who actually shared the beliefs they were paid to advance.

The elite cadre of the GOP and the official conservative movement constitute a bureaucracy, and the critique of bureaucracy are equally valid. The beliefs of the Heritage Foundation bureaucrat are in many ways more important in the operations of that institution than the beliefs of Ed Feulner or Ed Meese. The enemy within the camp is always the most to be feared.

Why, after all, does John Cornyn not hesitate to urinate all over the Republican rank-and-file in Florida by endorsing Charlie Crist more than a year before the primary? Because no one at NRSC headquarters, nor any member of Cornyn’s Senate staff, has any interest in the concerns of the conservative grassroots nor any incentive to represent those concerns.

Is David Brooks going to speak up for Marco Rubio? Will Kathleen Parker defend the rights of Florida Republicans to choose their own candidates? Do you expect Rod Dreher to tear himself away from the important work of defaming Mark Levin in order to tell his readers in Dallas what Cornyn has done?

“This is the arrogance of the intellectual elite, to imagine that their particular specialty — the expression of abstract ideals via the written word — is the only ability that matters, qualifying them as experts on anything and everything they choose to write about.”
Robert Stacy McCain, May 22, 2009

Michelle Malkin went to Oberlin, Mark Levin went to Temple and Ann Coulter went to Dartmouth. These are all elite institutions, and all three of these individuals engage in endeavors that qualify them as “intellectuals” in the sense that their work involves “shaping public opinion.” Why, then, are they at odds with, and scorned by, the people you think of as the “intellectual elite”? Chiefly because they do not look down at The Ordinary American, nor do they ever entertain the notion that their readers are morons incapable of thinking for themselves.

The greatest example of this respect for the grassroots, of course, is Rush Limbaugh. If you listen to Rush regularly, you know that sometimes he’ll get a caller who’ll say, “Rush, how can you say such-and-so? Everybody in the MSM is saying the opposite. The people will believe the MSM, not you!” And Limbaugh will calmly reply, “Look, you figured it out on your own. I figured it out. Don’t you think that other people see the same thing and can figure it out for themselves? Give people some credit.”

What makes Rush angry is the evident belief of so many Republican “leaders” that the American people can’t handle the truth. Among these truths is that the economic agenda of today’s Democrats is the exact same agenda that Hayek warned was being advanced by the intellectuals of 1949.

Begins with an “s,” ends with an “m,” and I don’t mean “sarcasm.” But don’t say it out loud, or Rod Dreher will call you a “crackpot.”

May 14, 2009

Miss December 2001 decides she can no longer associate with Miss USA pageant

Shanna Moakler, whose erstwhile career as a Playboy centerfold has been previously noted here, considers Carrie Prejean a disgrace:

“I cannot with a clear conscious move forward supporting and promoting the Miss Universe Organization when I no longer believe in it, or the contracts I signed committing myself as a youth,” she continues. “I want to be a role model for young women with high hopes of pageantry, but now feel it more important to be a role model for my children.”

Thank you, Miss December 2001 and divorced mom. As “a role model for young women,” your quest for another reality-TV contract and friendship with Perez Hilton will surely be an inspiration to millions.

P.S.: You misspelled “conscience.”

(H/T: Memeorandum.)

UPDATE: Let’s hear from someone who has never appeared nude in Playboy:

Christians are supposed to be fat, balding sweaty little men with bad complexions. It’s liberals who are supposed to be the sexy ones. (I know that from watching “The West Wing” and all movies starring Julia Roberts.) But sadly for liberals, in real life, the fat, balding sweaty little guy with the bad complexion is Perez Hilton and the smoking-hot babe is Carrie Prejean.

Yes, it’s our own adorable Ann Coulter, and you should read the whole thing.

BTW, I’d like to take this opportunity to thank the hateful opportunists who attempted to destroy Miss California by leaking those Carrie Prejean nude photos, and thereby drove this blog to previously unimaginable peaks of traffic. Of course, I was the only conservative blogger with the capitalistic foresight to lock down both “Carrie Prejean jailbait” and “Carrie Prejean sideboob” with a single post, but I couldn’t have done it without the assistance of unscrupulous photographers and gay gossip bloggers.

Speaking of naked gay video, Keith Olbermann:

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

(H/T: Hot Air.)

UPDATE II: Welcome Instapundit readers! Remember Professor Reynold’s famous words:

“Personally, I think the more topless photos, the better. But as a straight male, what do I know about beauty pageants?”

More commentary at Jules Crittenden, Pundit & Pundette, Sister Toldjah, and Right View from the Left Coast.

UPDATE III: Perez Hilton plays the “homophobia” card:

(H/T: Townhall) No Perez, Miss Prejean doesn’t hate all gay people. She only hates you.

SEE ALSO:

May 12, 2009

Video: Ann Coulter does ‘Red Eye’

Chairman Ann says:

“This is a pageant in which the women are asked to strut in bikinis . . . It is owned by a well-known, renowned, open, serial adulterer, Donald Trump. It is judged by sodomites. And they are claiming they are shocked to see the sight of a 17-year-old girl’s back.”

May 7, 2009

VIDEO: Ann Coulter vs. Joy Behar

Behaw guest-hosting on “Larry King Live,” and Ann Coulter calling Dick Cheney a “wuss”:

Behar cites John McCain’s opposition to waterboarding and Coulter replies: “You know what a fan I am of John McCain.” Heh.

April 23, 2009

Ann Coulter’s mom, R.I.P.

Very touching:

After reading the eulogy column I wrote for Father last year — not to excess, probably only about 4,637 times — Mother realized to her chagrin that she wouldn’t be able to read the eulogy column I’d be writing for her, and started hinting that maybe I could rustle up a draft so she could take a peek.
But I couldn’t do it, until I had to.
The only thing Mother wanted to be sure my brothers and I included in her remembrances were her contributions to the Republican Party, the New Canaan Republican Town Committee and the Daughters of the American Revolution.
She was a direct descendant of at least a dozen patriots who served the cause of the American Revolution and traced her lineage on both sides of her family to Puritan nonconformists who came to America in 1633 seeking religious freedom on a ship led by Pastor Thomas Hooker. Or, as Homeland Security chief Janet Napolitano would call them, “A dangerous right-wing extremist hate group.”

If the joke seems out of place, it’s not. Ann’s mother was a proud Republican. Also, it’s not a joke.

BTW, Ann Coulter’s mom was from Kentucky, so therefore Ann’s a Southern girl despite having been raised in Connecticut. Read the whole thing.

April 10, 2009

‘This is great news for everyone . . . ‘

“. . . except Barney Frank, who’s always secretly wondered what it would be like to be taken by a Somali pirate.”

March 10, 2009

Short demonstration of the pathetic inadequacy of Meghan McCain

New York Times Q&A Ann Coulter:

Q: Do you consider yourself as speaking for the conservative movement, or just someone who has attracted many conservative fans? Something else?
A
: I think I speak for all Americans who think newspaper editors who print the details of top-secret anti-terrorist intelligence gathering programs on page one in wartime should be executed for treason.

You know, just when I start to feel a tiny bit guilty over my relentless punk-smacking of David Brooks, here comes Ann to remind me that I haven’t really done enough. Yet.