13 posts tagged “coulter”

For the first time ever, I had to put down an Ann Coulter column. I did it because I was starting to feel that maybe it's better if she, herself, were put down - because she just won't give it up.

No, I don't mean give THAT up, I mean the McCain bashing. I mean, is McCain really the head of the Devil on the body of Kirstie Alley?

I understand that no one is thrilled with John McCain as the Republican Presidential nominee, not even his black adopted daughter, but he's no Dole, and he's better than Nixon, and he happens to be the best candidate running.

Just to hear Hillary or Obama speak is so grating that I can't hit "mute" fast enough. Can you imagine having to listen to either for four years, much less having to look at them? Well then, how about eight?

Whether it's Hillary or Obama, for the first time ever I find myself hating a nominee before the election even takes place. I mean, I didn't hate Clinton for years, and I didn't hate Gore until he tried to steal the election, so I think it says something that I hate Hillary and Obama right out of the box.

Look, I realize that to the Coulters of the Republican Party, McCain is a lemon, but every inspirational book ever written says that when you have a lemon,, you exercise your rights under the Lemon Law and demand either reimbursement or a replacement. Or since that's not practical from a time standpoint, MAKE LEMONADE! For God's sake, in the same situation, Dole made pineapple!

Ann, I'm beggin' ya, and this is personal, find another note on that piano... or at least get it tuned. I only ask because when you become more irritating than Hillary, I'm not concerned about my eardrum shattering, I'm worried about knocking the Earth off its axis.

Today's column is (for about the fourth time in three minutes) all about McCain-Feingold. So I absolutely had to stop reading. But I did a search - not a single mention of George Bush as the McCain-Feingolder-in-Chief. It's too bad Spielberg isn't still doing Amazing Stories.

If McCain loses and Obama turns America into the world's newest socialist state with the help of a veto-proof Democratic Congress, I know conservatives won't blame Ann Coulter, just like they don't blame George Bush for the many and horrible things he's done. They'll just blame John McCain... as usual.

I think someone said here or somewhere on Vox that Ann Coulter didn't say she'd vote for Hillary if McCain was the Republican nominee.

Yes, she did.

Bill O'Reilly ran the clip from Hannity and The Other Guy at the start of the show in which Hannity says to Ann that he can't believe she'd vote for Hillary if McCain was the other option:

"Yes... I'd CAMPAIGN for Hillary if McCain gets the nomination," Coulter said with emphasis as noted. That's irresponsible.

But then Coulter added, "Hillary would be stronger in the war on terror than McCain." That's insane. She's clearly the poster girl for McCain Derangement Syndrome.

Now I want McCain to be the nominee just to see what happens.

Coulter & Co... Leading The Lemmings

Is John McCain beyond the age of reason? Some people barely beyond the age of consent seem to think so. And they are being influenced by people whose outlandish statements are beyond words and prove beyond a reasonable doubt that older is not necessarily wiser.

I mean, it's perfectly legitimate to press one's case against John McCain, but is it too much to ask that you be rational? Am I being too demanding to expect that? None of the candidates still standing on either side are without serious flaws, but only one is being scrutinized at the molecular level and vilified by his party, and it's not even the one who should be.

That one is Mitt Romney.

Don't get me wrong, I'd love for Romney to be the nominee, but first he has a lot of explaining to do, and he has to be able to show that he can not only answer charges but level them. So far he's an abject failure. I don't expect Super Tuesday to be a disaster for Mitt, and it could even have a good outcome, but it doesn't matter if the candidate himself is fatally flawed.

McCain isn't. That's why conservatives are abandoning reason and resorting to T & D - threats and decibels. And they should be blaming the very guy they want - Romney. He could have had the nomination in a cakewalk. Instead, he's doing what he's done to keep himself from getting it - Not much. Did you see his add in which he takes on Hillary. Did you ask yourself why? Can the guy do anything right?

I read a travesty of a column this morning in which the writer literally threw reason out the window, and that column appeared in a highly regarded conservative publication. I'm used to seeing such things come from the left, but when it comes from the right it's shocking.

I've already said many times that you can't criticize McCain if you overlook Bush's failings in the same areas. yet conservatives still shamelessly do it, and nothing McCain has done is as bad as what conservatives make it out to be - or more importantly, what Bush has done, if for no other reason (and there are other reasons) than because of the relative powers of the two offices.

But it gets worse when you bring Romney into the mix. For example, is Romney a better conservative than McCain? At best, anyone being honest can only say, "Probably." And Romney hasn't even spent many years in office where a record might be better determined.

Now I don't like to be defending McCain, and I would much prefer the Republicans had a good, strong, charismatic conservative. unfortunately, they don't. There's not even one on the horizon.

So you know the admonishment; when you're in a hole, stop digging? Well, conservatives are digging furiously - mindlessly. After nominating Reagan and Dole, some conservatives are actually advancing the idea that McCain is too old - and blaming it on his POW ordeal. Incredible.

Here's what makes that even more absurd, outrageous, astounding, shocking, preposterous - they don't even understand what things were like when the constitution was written. A President has to be at least 35 years of age. Would anyone elect a thirty-five-year-old today? God, I hope not!

But the problem is, while we might regard that as absurdly young and inexperienced, do you know what the average lifespan was in 1787 - 15. You hit puberty, they gave you a wife, you had a kid, then you both celebrated by dying... and the grandparents raised it... and they were already dead for years. Without indoor plumbing, you didn't want to live any longer anyway, and people used to sit on their front porches and wonder when the toilet would be invented.

At night, they could only dream of microwaves, and when comedians used to say, "You're goin' to the moon, Alice," no one would laugh because they needed a refrigerator before Tang. At least war finally brought us something useful - M & Ms.

OK, anyway, maybe it was like 26, but the fact is, 35 was an advanced age back then. I'm sure if the average person had lived to be 78, the founders would have set the minimum age for a President at 60 so they could get the midlife crises out of the way first.

I keep hearing about all the damage John McCain has done in the Senate. The fact is, he did very little, although maybe not for having tried? But doesn't that only make the case for getting him out of the Senate and into the Presidency where he won't be signing bills he introduced the way Bush did? And isn't it a worst case scenario if McCain is still in the Senate and Billary or Barama is President?

So if you want your teenager to be going on field trips to gay bathhouses, vote for Hillary. Although I can see where voting for Obama and having your children learn how to be slumlords might be OK, but all I ask is that conservatives demand meticulously reasoned argument - you know, like mine. And if you're not sure about what you're reading and believing, ask me. I'm always happy to help... unless you think I'm too old?!?

Have you seen Ann Coulter lately. she looks like I've never seen her - frazzled and frantic, and her voice seems to have risen several octaves.

As John McCain closes in on the Republican nomination and polls say he's the only one who's competitive with Clinton and Obama, the most prominent conservative to actively oppose the Senator is becoming more and more strident.

Today, Ann said she'd vote for Hillary before she'd vote for McCain. That's not the sort of comment one can backtrack on very easily, and it's as outrageous as it is impractical.

We understand, Ann, that you really hate McCain, but there are far more important issues than the ones you and other conservatives cite in denouncing him, and even if they were equally as important as security and spending, why haven't you been demanding that the President get tough on immigration and spending?

What we're now seeing is a prime example of why I say I don't like conservatives much better than Democrats. McCain is not an ideal candidate. He's just the best of those who've run. I know you think Romney is far better, Ann, but he's had plenty of time to demonstrate that... and he hasn't.

So I hope you read that column in the Wall Street Journal today. If you had already, you wouldn't have said what you did about voting for Hillary. Either that or you're blinded by hate and thus merely typical of many conservatives.

McCain is The Man. He's the only choice for Republicans and the country, and if you were not to support him, you would do your country a disservice for which I would never forgive you if it came to pas that McCain lost and Hillary won.

By the way, would you vote for Obama over McCain?

John McCain is a known entity. You can predict where he'll be unpredictable. Romney is an unknown entity, one in which it's impossible to predict where he will fail you. Or do you think he won't?

If so, did you think Bush wouldn't either? Because I don't know about you, but I expected George Bush to become more conservative, not less, once he took office if for no other reason than simply because he'd be grateful for the support conservatives had shown him.

So I'd advise you to be very careful, Ann. You've already turned me off, and it's time to prove you're not a blind ideologue - something I'd never thought you were. if you can't find a reason to endorse McCain, then at least take a cue from Al Sharpton's suggestion for Bill Clinton and shut up.

Because if you continue, you're not going to bury John McCain, you'll only be marginalizing yourself, and I'd hate to see that happen. You've taken your best shot, you lost, move on... before you start to sound like that group of the same name.

Do you wish the dinosaurs were still roaming the Earth?

The other day, a very nice, polite, no doubt well-intentioned youngster by the name of Jeremy was lamenting our loss of freedom as a result of the Patriot Act. Of course, when pressed, Jeremy couldn't name any specific freedom he'd lost, much less name someone who'd been victimized by the Patriot act. But I bet everyone has heard of someone who's been jailed, fined or prohibited from using his property as he'd like because of environmental restrictions - and I"m not talking about big polluters.

Recently, James Taranto coined a term: "the delusion of competence." If he didn't coin it, I, at least, hadn't seen it before, but I immediately thought about all those scientists who subscribe to the UN climate report - as well as some here...

"In the paramount threat of our time, the Democratic Party is AWOL. And those are the patriotic Democrats. The rest are actively aiding the enemy... Like the noose hysteria currently sweeping New York City, liberals are always fighting the last battle because the current battle is too frightening." - Ann Coulter

I read something tonight about what a fraud carbon offsets are, and I was surprised that it was so easy to see and yet I hadn't heard anyone talking about it until now. It has to do with planting trees, but it doesn't involve the sheer numbers necessary for so many people to cover their tracks. Any ideas? Btw, I have so much material that mocks and debunks this warming nonsense that I can't keep up. It's literally scrolling off my clipboard extender.

How many of a species is enough? I ask because the other day, a woman called Rush Limbaugh to tell him she was a conservative, but she was also an animal lover, and she was beside herself that there were only 5000 tigers left. Limbaugh mentioned in a sort of question.statement that they were in zoos, to which the woman responded, "No, I'm talking about in the WILD!" That prompted Limbaugh to utter one of the funniest lines I've heard recently - "Oh, OK, then it's covered." At this point, you may want to reconsider your answer to my opening question?!?

So warming started the fires... and the fires increase warming... so not only is the cycle complete, it's spiraling out of control, and perhaps the only thing that can stop it now is a major volcanic eruption?

And is it my imagination or is it that with oil around $95. a barrel, liberals don't seem nearly as sanguine about their "blood for oil" indictment of the administration?

Late yesterday, the greatest woman of her generation answered questions about her ordeal.

No, I'm not talking about Paris Hilton on Larry King, I'm talking about Ann Coulter on what it was like being ambushed by, arguably, America's richest floozie on America's lowest rated talk show.

Her column was late in posting, and I thought we might have to wait a week to get her reaction, but alas, it's here. And though there is nothing that's really unexpected, what's so great about Ann Coulter, is that she doesn't mince words no matter how handicapped her attackers may have been, and in that respect, I'm often a little surprised by the words she doesn't mince.

No one could successfully argue that John Edwards is not slime, but some would certainly try to defend his wife against such a charge. At least they might have before today with Tin Lizzie's attempt to capitalize on her once-in-a-lifetime chance to converse with true greatness - and which she handled about as well as her hubby's desperate effort to earn points at the expense of Dick Cheney's gay daughter.

Wasting no time, Mrs. Edwards rushed to solicit funds for Johnnie-are-you-queer-boy's rapidly failing run for the Democratic Presidential nomination, and this time, The Edwardses decided that mentioning Coulter's name  would raise more cash than if they invoked the name of their dead son.

Unless maybe Elizabeth didn't consult with her attorney as she claimed not to have done before her carefully composed Coulter confrontation - CCCC?

In any case, Ann Coulter, more than anyone else, represents what America should be, as opposed to what it will be if she were brought down. Just one example: Ann would not allow anyone who is here illegally to become a citizen. Amazingly, that's controversial, and it is because America's values have fallen so low that people are willing to overlook what they consider to be small transgressions if they consider them to be transgressions at all.

Now, if there were a project you didn't want to do, and someone came onto your property and did it, would you make him part of your family? You'd be thankful, sure, you'd compensate him, and then you'd tell him to get off your property.

So Ms. Coulter has my undying admiration, and I leave you with this quote from her:

"I'm more of a man than any liberal is."

Yes, and more of a woman, too, Ann...

In fact, are there any liberal women? I mean, I know there are liberal females, but... women?

And you've been so good, here's a bonus:

"I'm the illegal alien of commentary, I'll do the jokes no one else will do."

She did it again, folks! Who can take a nothing day and suddenly make it all seem worthwhile? And in this case, it's not even what Ann said that's news, it's the reaction to it.

Chris Matthews ambushed Ms. Coulter on Hardball yesterday with a pre-arranged, pre-scripted call by someone who called herself Elizabeth Edwards, aka, Elizabeth The Exploiter, who apparently pleaded for Ann to stop attacking Edwards' weasel...

Er... gutless husband.

I know what you're thinking, "But Ted, the woman has incurable... nerve!"

Of course. And Ann has made no serious attacks on The Haircut, but the point of the setup was to have a cancer sufferer embarrass the brilliant and brutally accurate, commentator.

On Good Morning America the day before, Ann was again asked about the botched joke in which she referred to Edwards as a faggot - as in, "Johnnie are you queer, boy?"

Ann responded by again playing off another liberal's prior comment.

Coulter: "If I'm going to say anything about John Edwards in the future, I'll just wish he had been killed in a terrorist assassination plot."

If you're unfamiliar, that was in reference to Bill Maher having said that people wouldn't be dying in Iraq and Afghanistan if Cheney had been attacked and killed. No one, of course, held Maher accountable because Cheney's on all liberals' approved hate list. In fact, I heard it's been dubbed The Dick List, by these silver-tongued devils.

But the liberal media stands vigilant for anything Coulter says that they might be able to frame as conservative "hate speech," and what I love most about Ann Coulter is that she does what I would do - she obliges them and defiantly so.

Elle est magnifique!

But the story doesn't end there or I wouldn't be writing this.

I happened to be looking though the Political group and I came across someone who'd been overcome by Ann's comments - as only liberals can be.

Ladies and gentlemen, introducing Changa...

"So now this heartless, soulless, trifling, inept, contemptuous, unintelligent bigot is on Hardball (looking more like the hookers that stand on Prospect Ave)." 

The writer is so unhinged by Queen Ann that she can only string adjectives - not that they're true, but as with any good liberal, they're what she feels.

Only someone suffering from temporary insanity or terminal stupidity  could say Coulter is inept or lacking in intelligence, and while Ann is certainly contemptuous (of liberals), our little hater (you'll see momentarily), I'm sure, meant "contemptible."

And Ann's trifling? Why Madlib's very post belies that.

But our complainant was just getting started.

"She's acting and sounding more like an immature 2 year old (sic) than anything remotely close to an adult, trying so desperately to win an argument with Elizabeth Edwards.  I've heard better comebacks from little kids on a playground."

And I've heard more articulate observations from those same children.

Once again, as is their standard method, notice the plethora of charges and the complete absence of evidence... or even examples that might allow you to decide for yourself?

It gets better...

"I could just come right out and call her a fucking bitch"

Surprised? I might have been if I hadn't encountered Barbie from Britain a few days ago. He had hurled like-kind epithets at me in demonstrating his mental adroitness.

But at least we can now understand why liberals have so much trouble expressing themselves on television.

Changa continues...

"but I was raised better than that..."

Notwithstanding the obvious, if she had been raised better than that, she wouldn't even be thinking it

"Ok, no I wasn't." 

Precisely, but I'm sure she's concealed it well up to now?!?

"Ann, you are a fucking loud mouth (sic) bitch."

Now wouldn't you just love to know her better? She must be a delightful conversationalist, A loving wife, and mother So why am I thinking she could be the poster girl for partial birth abortion?!?

"There's a special place in hell (sic) for people like you who serve no one but themselves and do nothing but further hate."

You read that right, Superhater super hates the alleged hater. It would seem that not only does Ann "further" hate, but her students exceed the teacher. Now THAT'S a hate mentor if ever there was one!

And that special place in Hell? You won't find Ann, but you'll find her portrait in its Hall of Fame as the Goddess who helped so many like Changa to end up there. I'm told that Ann is the all-time assist leader...

"And take that cross off your neck.  You do not have an inkling of good Christian (or human) values in you!"

Yes, you know, Ann, like the one's Changa has on full display?

But she's bared all, people, so we should applaud her and celebrate her... uh... expressivosity...

Even as we critique Changa in her own words...

"heartless, soulless, trifling, inept, contemptuous, unintelligent bigot... (looking more like the hookers that stand on Prospect Ave)... acting and sounding more like an immature 2 year old than anything remotely close to an adult, trying so desperately to win an argument... I've heard better comebacks from little kids on a playground."

I think that about sums up our little liberal hate-tress. Hers is a case of transference, pure and simple. And don't you just hate it when good beasts go bad? Yes, what we have here is a dead parrot!

How can a  steamroller be so agile?

I anxiously awaited Ms. Coulter's column yesterday. I knew it had to be about the immigration bill, and I wondered of she would finally unload on Bush. If you haven't read it, she didn't.

But how can a hydraulic press be so deft?

I haven't spoken to Ann in a while, so this is mere speculation, but while she mentioned El Presidente, she chose to focus on the problem, and I reckoned it was because bulldozing a Bush served no purpose. It was overkill, and it would cost way more than Bush is worth. He's virtually untouchable anyway, and intense criticism now only divides conservatives.

Lesson learned, although since my criticism seems to unite conservatives, I may not change course.

In any case, Bush has all he needs, but he doesn't have all he wants - the grand prize - the reason why his big money backers bought him. Our job is to keep him from attaining that goal, but our bigger job is to unite in restoring America and its vision - for Americans.

That means we welcome legal immigrants - from a variety of nations, not tens of million from one, so matter how much we like their food and their music.

Ann did cite what I've been saying for years, only she said it better:

"In 1960, whites were 90 percent of the country. The Census Bureau recently estimated that whites already account for less than two-thirds of the population and will be a minority by 2050. Other estimates put that day much sooner. One may assume the new majority will not be such compassionate overlords as the white majority has been. If this sort of drastic change were legally imposed on any group other than white Americans, it would be called genocide. Yet whites are called racists merely for mentioning the fact current immigration law is intentionally designed to reduce their percentage in the population. "

Too general? Does she presume too much?

How about this:

"If liberals think Iraqis are genetically incapable of pulling off even the most rudimentary form of democracy, why do they believe 50 million Mexicans will magically become good Americans, imbued in the nation's history and culture, upon crossing the Rio Grande?"

Ann Coulter, ladies and gentlemen - accept no substitutes.

Then she quotes Samuel P. Huntington's book "Who Are We? The Challenges to America's National Identity:"

"Would America be the America it is today if in the 17th and 18th centuries it had been settled not by British Protestants but by French, Spanish or Portuguese Catholics?

So forget Bush. I mean, leave him to me, you have more important things to do. Please just remember the next time you hear him say that deporting 12 million illegals would be "impractical," If that's true, it was he, more than anyone else, who made it so.

--------------

In other news, filthy O'Reilly labeled Michael Savage "a hater" today, because he claimed that Savage posted pictures on his website in which he allegedly alluded to the possibility that they were our missing soldiers in Iraq.

I say "allegedly," because The Factor scumbag couldn't be bothered with providing any quotes, nor could he even speculate as to why Savage might have done something like that. This is not the first time O'Weasel has sought to exalt and advance himself as the voice of moderation at the expense of conservatives. It's not even the hundredth.

For my part, I don't like Michael Savage's crude ways, and I don't listen to him, but I'll defend him all day, everyday, sight unseen if I have to choose between him and opportunists like O'Reilly. And if Savage is a hater, I know for a fact that he at least hates the right things.

One more note. I don't think O'Reilly knows how mush he's like Don Imus. Both think (thought) they were more powerful than they are, and when the chips were down with Imus, he was shown to be impotent because in reality, he had no supporters.

The drought has ended maybe? A prominent conservative attacks the source...

"Americans – at least really stupid Americans like George Bush..."

I'm not alone anymore, even if that line is a severe understatement.

So go ahead, you now have permission from on high to speak your true feelings

Here's some more

"... the natural state of the world is Darfur. The freakish aberration is America and the rest of the Anglo-Saxon world."

Anglo-Saxon, get it? As I keep saying, don't blame people of color - blame white people. You brought the best and the worst to the new world. And whites, either through guilt or stupidity, have chosen to throw the good out with the bad. Principles? Gone. Manners? Gone Taste? Gone. Culture? Gone. Now, people of all colors laugh at those who attempt to advance anything involving values and good breeding..

Whites still have the power to turn it around tomorrow. But they won't. I know that for certain - I lived in California.

"At the precise moment in history when the U.S. has abandoned any attempt to transmit Anglo-Saxon virtues to its own citizens, much less to immigrants, George Bush wants to grant citizenship to hordes of immigrants who are here precisely because they are fleeing cultures that are utterly dysfunctional and ruinous for the humans who live in them."

I'm sure he has his reasons - and they don't involve you. In fact, he wants you to butt out.

"Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis, immigrant and first Jewish member of the Supreme Court, said that Americanization required that the immigrant adopt 'the clothes, the manners and the customs generally prevailing here' and that he adopt 'the English language as the common medium of speech.... he must be brought into complete harmony with our ideals and aspirations and cooperate with us for their attainment. Only when this has been done will he possess the national consciousness of an American.' Or as George Bush would call it, 'empty rhetoric.' And as Linda Chavez would call it, 'racist.'"

That last word's the killer, isn't it? Black people can take being called "nigger" far better than you can take being called "racist," isn't that right? You'd rather give up all that you value than to be labeled that.

But if you only care about preserving and enhancing America, and you would welcome anyone of any color who appreciates America for all that it stands (or stood) for, if you respect others' cultural heritage but don't wish to superimpose it on America, you are not a racist. You are a patriotic American.

Being Irish, I spent a little time in an Irish forum before coming here. After a short time I had to flee. I wouldn't want 95% of the people in there to emigrate to America today. There are many reasons why I feel that way, but can I just say it's because they're scum? Does that make me a racist?

"...traitors who are citizens have destroyed all acculturating institutions.... (and) all incentive for the poor to work or even keep their knees together before marriage."

And In Britain right now, they want to ban any classroom discussion that advocates that marriage is the preferred institution. 

"And it is simply a fact that no one is trying to turn immigrants into Americans."

That's not true. Lots of people are trying to turn immigrants into Americans...  But like the way you turn WAV files into MP3s - they're "lossy."

But good enough for government work...

"Americans display no evident desire to defend their culture, much less transmit it, and immigrants show no evident desire to adopt it."

But a whole lot of Americans aren't proud of their country, so why would they encourage anyone to embrace it? And why shouldn't they try to stop you from promoting such a flawed society? But I know you're like me and you want nothing but the best, so when you encounter one of those Americans - or maybe even one of the audience members from last week's Miss Universe pageant, ask them which country is better. Because that's the one thing I haven't heard - I've just been too preoccupied with all those who are trying to get here... well, that and hating George Bush.

Last night, the always humorless Joseph Farah of WorldNetDaily weighed in on Don Imus, condemning him in the strongest of terms. I didn't mention it until now because I sent Farah an email, and I wanted to wait to see if he published it. He didn't.

I wasn't surprised. Years ago, Joe and I used to be best buds. Well, maybe not, but we did correspond a number of times, always at my initiation naturally, but the relationship soured either when he learned I was a non-believer or when I leveled some criticism at one of his positions (I can't remember what) for the umpteenth time.

I did get one letter to him published. It was after he had apologized for being anti-Vietnam in the 70s. I wrote that he shouldn't have done that (apologized) because it was a meaningless gesture, not unlike Jane Fonda's apology. I said that he was a different person then, and knowing him, he strongly believed in the rightness of his opposition. I added that furthermore, he was still right to have opposed it.

Anyway, I sent the following to Joey:early this morning after he'd begun his column with this:

"For once in my life, I agree with Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson."