The madness of Ann Coulter

One of my favorite fellow bloggers once referred to Ann Coulter as “the worst thing to happen to the Republican Party since Watergate.”

I agree completely. A real-life friend of mine has remarked that he really can’t talk about Ann Coulter with me. I get that her whole column is about trying to irritate people. I understand that completely. THAT is exactly my problem with her. Her column isn’t about persuasion or argument, it’s about beligerence and irritation. It bothers me that that passes itself off as worthwhile writing.

Anyway …

In recent months, I have concluded that she doesn’t even try to apply anything like a consistent principle to her writing. Except, of course, “If I don’t like you, then you’re extremely bad.”  Of course, the beings that she does and doesn’t like are pretty random.

I’m going to work mostly with her attacks on Mike Huckabee, because I know those better.  Bear with me.

Back in October, Coulter attacked Mike Huckabee for appearing on a stage with Bill Clinton at an appearance to help efforts against childhood obesity:

Huckabee also joined with impeached president Bill Clinton in a campaign against childhood obesity. What, O.J. wasn’t available?

Bill and Mike’s excellent adventure lasted about one week in May 2005 — or just long enough to burnish the image of the president who committed perjury and obstruction of justice in a civil rights suit against him, molested the help and was credibly accused of rape by Juanita Broaddrick.

So, her argument is that one should avoid the company of impeached Presidents. Of course, that flies in the face of her “logic” used in the same column:

Thompson, whom President Nixon once called “dumb as hell,”

… that would be impeached President Nixon, wouldn’t it? Granted, his impeachment never went to the Senate, but that’s because he resigned rather than face the certain removal … unlike Clinton, who beat removal (though I do agree with her on the point that Sen. Thompson was wrong to vote against it). The point is that she apparently has no particular consistency with impeachment as a standard by which to judge associations.

Of course, Ann Coulter wound up endorsing Mitt Romney for President, apparently forgiving him for appearing on stage with Ted Kennedy for a bill signing.

     Of course, that was just a requirement that every citizen buy health insurance … one might consider that meddling in the free market if said person wasn’t a Romney apologist, but I guess that that’s not a problem for Coulter.

Ted Kennedy had praise for the bill, though.

In my hierarchy of vile Democrats, Ted Kennedy ranks worse than Bill Clinton. Clinton may have been credibly accused of rape by Juanita Broderick, but Mary Jo Kopechne hasn’t made any accusations lately … and no reasonable person questions who is responsible for her death.

In truth, though, I don’t condemn anyone for appearing on a stage with another politician, no matter how vile. These are symbolic actions and part of political ceremony. There is little that a person can do without violating some of these standards.

Of course, if this matters to Ann Coulter, then she should be hating Mitt Romney as much as Mike Huckabee. Or is logic too much to ask?

I did find this one amusing:

Liberals claim to be enraged at Romney for being a “flip-flopper.” I’ve looked and looked, and the only issue I can find that Romney has “flipped” on is abortion. When running for office in Massachusetts — or, for short, “the Soviet Union” — Romney said that Massachusetts was a pro-choice state and that he would not seek to change laws on abortion.

Liberals? Interesting …

Of course, if the only thing she can find is abortion, then she’s got issues. Perhaps it was difficult for her to find Mitt Romney’s position on gay rights:

“We must make equality for gays and lesbians a mainstream concern” and arguing that he would be a stronger advocate for gay rights than Kennedy.

Or maybe this comment on gun control was too hard to find:

“We do have tough gun laws in Massachusetts; I support them. I won’t chip away at them; I believe they protect us and provide for our safety.”

I could go on and on, but I’m not trying to attack Mitt Romney in this, I’m trying to attack Ann Coulter. So, I’ll leave it at that.

She also whines about evolution in one column. Since Mike Huckabee believes in Creation, he gets asked about it. Strangely enough, she is fussing that she doesn’t get asked. Perhaps that has something to do with the fact that people don’t like talking to Ann Coulter. I certainly wouldn’t.

Here’s her complaint:

Asked on CNN’s “Larry King Live” Monday night about his beliefs on evolution, Huckabee rushed to assure King that he has no interest in altering textbooks that foist this fraud on innocent schoolchildren.

So, just to clarify … Mike Huckabee should not encourage music education, but he should encourage the removal of evolution from school teaching. I’m really not sure about her definition of a small government’s role in education.

Of course, no Presidential candidate is going to end the teaching of evolution in American public schools. But of the candidates left in the field, only Mike Huckabee rejects evolution. The other candidates accept what Ann Coulter calls “Darwin’s discredited theory.”

Any points to Huckabee for being wise enough to reject it, also? No?

Of course, there’s a simple reason for this. Ann Coulter just likes to complain. She likes to insult people. Trying to form a coherent argument out of Ann Coulter’s writings is like trying to weave burlap, silk, reed cane, hemp, and piano wire into one garment.

I’m waiting for her to join the chorus of right-wingers condemning Bob Kerrey and the Hillary Clinton campaign for referring to Sen. Obama as Barack Hussein Obama, given her tendency to call him “B. Hussein Obama.”

The woman is nuts. The world will be much better off when more people realize that.

 

 

WordPress.com Political Blogger Alliance