Today on Blogcritics
Home » I Hate to Love Ann Coulter

I Hate to Love Ann Coulter

Please Share...Print this pageTweet about this on Twitter0Share on Facebook0Share on Google+0Pin on Pinterest0Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

I hate to prove my everlasting love for Ann Coulter. Wonder who a fellow would have to shoot to get a date with Ann? All the worth-shootin' Kennedys are long dead…No wait, that's not what I mean to say. Let me reload and take another shot at it.

I hate to love Ann Coulter. She's a bad, bad person. It's a horrible vice that speaks to the moral rot at my soul. It proves I'm heartless. But I can't help myself. I love Ann Coulter.

I suspect that Miss Ann would not approve of the likes of me. For starters, her new book is called Godless. Us vs. them here makes it that athiests are liberals and conservatives are believers. I'd fall on the wrong side of that divide, I'm afraid.

But her whole PR run on the book has been built on these now famous and publicly repeated statements from the book about the New Jersey widows "enjoying" their husbands deaths. "I've never seen people enjoying their husbands' deaths so much." Predictably, there have been a bunch of people of all political stripes clucking their tongues in exquisitely sensitive outrage.

Ann Coulter is hotThis whole public theater of Coulter's has a beautiful Andy Kaufman thing going. She's the national political wrestling villain, an evil heel. Oh god, I think it's going to be a gusher! I'm just saying.

Let's pause to note for a moment that she's got a perfectly legitimate point about professional widows and victims. Left wing types have gotten to be pretty clever about sending out widows, grieving mothers, and victims to do their dirty work, to a significant extent shielded by our compassion, taking foul advantage of our social niceties.

I object strongly to this emotional fascism, and the specifically depraved, life-energy draining vampirism of this whole setup of pushing the victims out as spokesman. Yes, it's dishonest and intellectually corrupt — but that's not the worst of it.

The worst thing is how this whole strategy depends on playing up to people's senses of pity — and that's just as wrong as can be. I'm sure the author of Godless would appreciate me invoking Nietzche, and specifically his Anti-Christ in her defense. Then again, some folks do seem to think that she is the Anti-Christ. But I digress.

Christianity is called the religion of pity. Pity stands in antithesis to the tonic emotions, which enhance the energy of the feeling of life: it has a depressive effect. One loses force when one pities. The loss of force which life has already sustained through suffering is increased and multiplied even further by pity. – Friedrich Nietzche, The Anti-Christ section 7

Nietzche was arguing against Christianity specifically with this argument and he certainly had a good point, but it's not all inclusive. Coulter has her better and lesser points, but she does not play to pity. Her idea of Christianity is something else.

The cheesiest Christians have nothing on the modern church of liberalism. Take it as it applies, but the poopie-lickin' pity parties make me nauseous like Nietzche. Coulter looks at them that way, too. That's the main real reason I love Ann Coulter.

The New Jersey widows and Cindy Sheehan are the absolute epitomes of the genre. These women and their backers are doing damage to our life force with their tactics, regardless of the specific policies they advocate. They pour in pity to corrupt the purity of the essence of our precious bodily fluids.

Coulter gleefully leaps overboard with her gratuitous pokes, of course. Maybe their husbands were getting ready to divorce them? Now damn it, that's just being a bitch. I'm calling a five-yard penalty on the field for unnecessary roughness. Bad Ann!

But that's nothing compared to the ridiculous presumptions of moral outrage from every grief pimp in the land. Coulter might be given to sweeping with an extremely broad brush, of overreaching, and guilty of pig stealing and goat humpin'. But that's a moral misdemeanor at worst — far less than the felonious offenses against Geometry and Theology of her opponents.

Let's start with Hillary, who reacted to the NJ widows remarks by attacking Coulter as "heartless." First off, that's a compliment to a pirate like Ann. It's a pretty wussy attack. You're heartless. Eeew! Of course "heartless" would be the perfect antithesis of the grotesquery of pity as Nietzche describes it — so thank you.

Plus Ann gets extra points for being willing to point out the obvious: If Hillary Clinton wants to be concerned over poor women being victimized and treated badly, she might ought to start closer to home with, among others, Juanita Broderick.

Nearly every pundit in the land it seems has rushed to defend the honor of these poor women being treated so badly by Ann. Of course, you'd expect the Democrats and pinkos to jump on this.

For example, the sanctimony of David Carr tut-tutting her "Deadly Intent" and her audience in the New York Times was pretty funny as a response. In the church of liberalism, Monsieur Carr is trying out for the role of Church Lady, demonstrating his little superior dance.

Without the total package, Ms. Coulter would be just one more nut living in Mom's basement. You can accuse her of cynicism all you want, but the fact that she is one of the leading political writers of our age says something about the rest of us.

Well, isn't that special? Our Blogcritics are falling all over themselves to get in the front of the I-hate-Coulter parade. Candy Kayne leads a special two-minute hate called "Why I Hate Ann Coulter, and You Should Too." Here's the money quote:

It's disgusting that Ann Coulter uses the misery of someone else to sell her vitriolic venom in book form. Her book continues to sell at a rapid pace, but at what cost? She reaps the benefits of the deaths of innocent men and women in 9/11 at the same time she tramples on the tears of their children and loved ones left behind.

That's your emotional fascism, right there. In the first place, it's all ass-backwards: It's Kerry putting these women in his commercials that was trying to benefit from the deaths of their husbands, not Ann criticizing them.  But beside that, you can't smack these women down in the public arena, cause you'll hurt their poor orphaned kids' feelings. 

Oh, hell no. You do not get to shut off debate by beating down opponents with your pity stick like that. By the time you get to making Kerry campaign commercials, you're way past any claims like that.

Steve Huff is reduced to a legal investigation, wanting to discredit Ann and perhaps have her jailed as a "felon" for apparently listing a business address as her legal residence on her public Florida voter registration files.

Huff's story itself is a far more grievous offense, arguably an actual victimization (whatever the exact legal parameters of publishing such private information on obvious high risk targets), not just a couple of catty remarks as Coulter made of "The Witches of East Brunswick." For the sake of making his dumb point about her voter registration, he absolutely lists what he believes to be her actual street address of residence. Avoiding making such information public would of course be exactly the legitimate reason for Coulter to fudge public records like voting registration.

Thankfully, Ann Coulter is not about playing victim — but she certainly could. She's certainly had a lot more public disruptions and half-assed attacks trying to actually prevent her from speaking her piece than any of the Film Actors Guild crowd has ever suffered, despite their exquisite fantasies of repression. She's just not carrying on about it. 

More specifically though, I'd bet you dollars to Homer Simpson's donuts that Ann Coulter has gotten worse, and more credible, death threats than any Dixie Chicks ever thought about. What kind of schmuck would I be considered to be if I published Natalie Maines' secret residential address on a public web page out of spite like that? I'd actually deserve the scorn.

But considerably cheesier are some of the numerous compassionate conservatives denouncing Ann to prove their great gushin' mother humpin' compassion. Brother Blogcritic Pete Blackwell insists that "Coulter Victimizes the Victims." Here's the finale:

Even if you violently disagree with the political views of the terror widows and Cindy Sheehans of the world, you can at least understand that they are motivated by their pain and grief. Coulter, on the other hand, is motivated by nothing other than greed and vindictiveness. And she's cashing in big-time.

See, ol' Pete's not like those heartless bastards who don't focus enough on the pitiful sufferings of others. But other than grasping for a cheap feeling of moral superiority or the fear of the whip of being called heartless, there's no rational reason to assume that pain and grief are their motivations rather than other obvious common forms of human venality. Cindy Sheehan sure seems to be a lot more concerned with talking about her dead son on television than she apparently was in actually raising him as a boy. Why should I think anything but the worst about her at this point?

"I wear their contempt as a badge of honor" Ann Coulter is prone to quoting. [Note my anti-Ann Coulter pictures.] As Charles Manson was being led off to prison at the end of his trial in the Helter Skelter movie, he says to the prosecutor "You know, if you beat a man with the whip, and he LIKES the whip- you're just making a fool of yourself." Then again, if it was Ann wielding the whip…but I digress.

I just know I'd rather be considered a big meanie than to waste my precious life energies on cheap pity to appease the misguided moral demands of weenies. I would ten times rather be "heartless" than once a grief pimp. 

I'd much rather play pirate, helping Ann Coulter make the pinkos walk the plank, rather than being an insufferable prig enforcing an arbitrary and selective public deference to pain.

Powered by

About Gadfly

  • nugget


  • Deliver US from Bush

    The GOP, bereft of decency, has to depend on a “woman” to fight for them.

    Part of Ann Culter’s hypocrisy is her accusation that the Left puts “un-assailable targets” out there as mouthpieces. That may be true sometimes, but the fact is, she does exactly the same thing.

    Like Thomas Sowell, a Black, Female, or Gay conservative gets to say things a White Male would never get away with. Coulter’s cute, incendiary throw-away comments would get a guy attacked in an alley, but Ann, with her coke-driven hyper-sexuality can spew her divisive non-sequiturs and flirt shamelessly at the same time, throwing off her opponents. We in the mainstream need to demand that Ann stops showing so much skin, gets married, and goes home to raise kids and clean house. She’s way too uppity for a good Christian woman – she should leave the thinking to the men. These are the things that her female un-assailability shields her from hearing, and she uses it un-repentantly.

    Her pretend spirituality is particularly nauseating, especially to those of us in the Mainstream who are religious. She is doing what Goebbels and Stalin did – de-humanizing her opponents. Watching her on Leno, it’s apparent that she wants to classify anyone not on board with her particular brand of pernicious Neoconism as a sub-human, effeminate, abortion-hungry Satan worshipper. She is claiming that Neocons alone are on G-d’s side – while at the same time epitomizing the cynical, atheistic dog-eat-dog heartlessness of a Nazi.

    Ann’s so-called “religion” has nothing to do with any part of the Bible I’m familiar with; she seems to model herself after the Medieval Catholics with their torture chambers and arrogant decimation of “Heathens.” Ann Coulter, Fred Phelps, and Bill O’Reilly are of the same cloth – and their popularity should be chilling to anyone familiar with the history of Germany in the 1930’s.

  • Mr. Real Estate

    There’s nothing like controversy to make you transform from a nobody into the author of a New York Times No. 1 Best Selling book. Whether people love her or hate her, people are buying Coulter’s book, and that’s probably what she wants. I don’t agree with Coulter’s tactics, but the firestorm she’s created is making her richer by the day.

  • Al Barger

    Deliver Us- Do you think you’re winning hearts and minds with your ridiculous rhetoric? You talk about Ann “de-humanizing” people while you’re calling HER Goebbels and Stalin and every other type of name.

    Meanwhile, you do not get to decide about whether she’s really a Christian, any more than she gets to decide that of you. My guess is that you yourself are atheistic, presuming to judge whether someone else is a legitimate Christian. Only, I suspect you don’t care about any of that, other than as an excuse to bash away at her. In short, your objections are political, so you shouldn’t pretend that they’re religious.

    It’s not that Ann Coulter is not religious, it’s just that it’s not the version of Jesus liked by members of the godless church of liberalism. She seems to be more into the old hard Yahweh of the Old Testament than the candy-ass pity-Jesus beloved of modern leftists.

  • Deliver US from Bush

    So, let’s see… it’s OK to be divisive, hypocritical, and dishonest as long as you’re making money?

    Is that what Jesus would do? Ann claims to be on the moral high ground just from the title of her book – but she’s in the deepest part of the gutter – that’s OK since she’s selling books? That’s the pathologically cynical Republican way, but it has nothing whatsoever to do with Judeo-Christian values.

    And by the way, they’re giving her trash away on every right-wingnut magazine, they must have gone out and bought thousands of copies of it just like Rupert Murdoch did, just pump up the numbers….

  • Deliver US from Bush

    By the standard of Torah, or “Old Testament” as its erroneously called, Ann Coulter has committed one of the gravest of all sins, by breaking the 9th commandment in every page. “Bearing False Witness” is what she does when she tries to say that any non-Neocon is a Satan worshipper. Obviously, there are many, many religious people who recognize the terrible cancer that has taken over our government.

    Ann Coulter is beneath contempt, and until she went religious I didn’t care to dignify her with a rebuttal. But her “religious” pretentions are really going too far.

    The “church of liberalism” is an idiotic, amateurish sound bite that the trained-seals will be chanting from now on, but it has nothing to do with reality.

    If you would take time to read the Bible, you would see that Torah law is radically progressive, defending the rights of the underdog, preventing monopolistic activity, and condemning arrogance. “Yaweh,” as you call it, is allowed to issue rebuke and be imperious, but not the humans of His creation. Just because Coulter pretends to be God, her confused sheep-followers think she’s being “Biblical.”

    Ignorance breeds ignorance, and the misinformed fools who scream the loudest slogans get the attention, but they are sadly confused.

  • Al Barger

    Deliver Us, I was looking again at your first comment, #2 “Part of Ann Culter’s hypocrisy is her accusation that the Left puts “un-assailable targets” out there as mouthpieces. That may be true sometimes, but the fact is, she does exactly the same thing… Coulter’s cute, incendiary throw-away comments would get a guy attacked in an alley, but Ann, with her coke-driven hyper-sexuality can spew her divisive non-sequiturs and flirt shamelessly at the same time, throwing off her opponents.”

    In the first place, this “coke-driven” business is the hypocrisy coming from someone bitching about people “bearing false witness” unless you’ve actually seen Ann with a coke spoon.

    But your basic argument there is that Ann is herself an unattackable opponent, like the NJ widows. But of course it is absolutely not even vaguely similar. Her point is that you’re not allowed to criticize these victims at pain of being villified for cruelty. You’re not ALLOWED to be critical of them.

    Whereas your argument is that Ann is unassailable because she’s sexy and funny. That’s not fair! Rightwingers have to be grumpy old fat guys. It’s not that you’re not allowed to criticize Coulter, just that it’s hard to do because she’s an appealing character. That’s not the same thing, is it?

  • Deliver US from Bush

    “Not allowed?” No one is stopping Ann. And her immunity to criticism is not because she’s cute and funny [she is neither, ever seen her hands? she’s a mutant!] but because she’s a freakish woman, and women are not usually mouthpieces for the pretend-macho Neocons. Because she’s female, she gets away with her insulting generalizations, pretending they’re funny, and that she’s some kind of a comic.

    She’s an absolutist, she breeds division, and is a pernicious, anti-social influence. The tacit or blatant support of her by Right-Wingers is a disgrace to decency. The depravity that permits a person to support the Anti-American Bush agenda is a result of generations of people educated by television and living in artificial environments with no down-to-earth common sense. She epitomizes the abstract, out-of-touch, Hegelian mind-set that says black is white and white is black.

    Thanks to Coulter and the Republicans, now no one is unassailable, and the “tone” of the debate has descended to the level of schoolyard screaming matches.

    Criticizing the NJ widows is just a cheap attention-getting tactic anyway, to divert attention from their arguments, which unlike the wives themselves, ARE un-assailable. Bush & cronies lied us into a war for oil and empire, and are decimating the economy to line the pockets of their looter buddies. By creating their own propaganda wing of the media, they wear a veneer of credibility that is acceptable to the people who are also duped by every other form of deceptive advertising that carpets our world.

    As for Coulter’s coke addiction, read “Blinded By The Right, the Consience of an Ex-Conservative,” by David Brock. A one-time co-conspiritor with Coulter, he documents her drug use during the 90’s in detail. Maybe she’s clean now, but that still doesn’t excuse her shameless pandering to her dim-witted, bloodthirsty, racist worshippers.

  • Margaret Romao Toigo

    Al Barger writes, “Left wing types have gotten to be pretty clever about sending out widows, grieving mothers, and victims to do their dirty work, to a significant extent shielded by our compassion, taking foul advantage of our social niceties.”

    Deliver US from Bush writes, “Coulter’s cute, incendiary throw-away comments would get a guy attacked in an alley, but Ann, with her coke-driven hyper-sexuality can spew her divisive non-sequiturs and flirt shamelessly at the same time, throwing off her opponents.”

    So what? Haven’t you good people ever heard that all’s fair in love, war, and partisan politics?

    Both paradigms could be interpreted as unseemly, unfair, and unethical. However, both are also examples of brilliant rhetorical strategy.

    It can be very frustrating when our opponents take advantage of our various social niceties in order to make their respective points because it is very difficult to formulate refutations that will not be taken as cold, callous and cruel.

    Complaining about an opponent’s use of such tactics doesn’t work because it forces one to assume the role of a “victim” who has been victimized, not by the insensitivity of others, but by one’s very own obtuseness.

    Countering such contrivances is not really all that difficult, for they are nothing but sophisticated forms of ad hominem argumentation.

    The helpful hint here is that attacking an individual’s ideas always works better, in the long run, than attacking the individual himself or herself.

  • Libareal

    Hey deliverYBOY!

    You are sounding like Howard Dean…ironically your description of St.Ann…sounds like you are really describing yourself!

    “an absolutist, he breeds division, and is a pernicious, anti-social influence”

  • Deliver US from Bush

    Bush’s appointments of Condoleezza Rice and Gonzalez are the same tactic. They’re not part of the good ‘ol boy gang, and they’re minorities – so who will dare criticize?

    When Gonzalez was being appointed, Bushies had the nerve to accuse Dems who objected to him of “racism,” but the objection was that he, like Bush, has no respect for our Constitutional Rights. Condi, who Exxon has named an oil tanker after, is another Neocon criminal no one dares attack. Same tactic, using an un-assailable minority as a human shield for their deceitful agenda. They are using the spineless political correctness of the left quite well for their treasonous ends.

    Pretend-diversity is just more evidence of Republican hypocrisy.

    Yes, all is fair in love, war and partisan politics. It is a dog-eat-dog world, just ask Ghengis Khan or Pol Pot. That’s what America’s Constitutional Democracy was supposed to protect us against, until the Reagan/Neocon cancer took hold.

  • Margaret Romao Toigo

    America’s Democratically Representative Constitutional Republic was never intended to protect us from the responsibility of thinking for ourselves. In fact, the First Amendment protects and defends our right to fully engage our political “enemies” in this dog-eat-dog world — and in just about any manner we see fit.

    Complaints about “[the use of] an un-assailable minority as a human shield” or “[the use of] the spineless political correctness of the left” or remarks about “pretend-diversity” and “the Reagan/Neocon cancer” are really good for rallying one’s own troops or preaching to one’s own choir.

    However, in serious discourse in which diametrically opposing viewpoints are explored, they are nothing more than inflammatory tit-for-tat silliness.

    Sure, I made the assertion that all’s fair in love, war, and partisan politics, but there is also something to be said for taking the high road and not lowering oneself to a level one is actively attributing to one’s opponents.

  • Al Barger

    Yeah there, Deliver US. So Bush is not allowed to appointment members of ethnic minority groups to a conservative administration. Would it be ok if W found a couple of LIBERAL blacks or Hispanics for his cabinet?

    You know, the fact that you’re really, really mad does not constitute evidence that you have any legitimate point whatsoever.



    TRY THIS …

    Just stop talking about A** C******.

    Really. Stop altogether.

    The best way of dealing with the phenomenon is silence and dismissal.

    Don’t buy her books, don’t read her work, don’t review it, don’t discuss it, don’t discuss her. If you happen to be a professional member of the chattering classes, don’t appear with her on talk shows, don’t engage her in debate, dialogue, arguments, faces-offs or whatever. And when the subject of A** C****** comes up – disregard it. If asked about her, ignore the question calmly; wait patiently for the next question on another subject. Pressed for an opinion, yield none. Charged with being “afraid to engage” the issue, smile and wait. The best public statement on A** C****** is DEAD AIR.

    Make some.

    Then, move on – and leave her ranting to her choir.

    More even than on the cheers of her sad supporters, the creature lives for and feeds on the outrage of the easily-baited.

    And no productive purpose is served by feeding its need for that attention.

    Don’t be so weak as to succumb to her provocations. You have better uses for your time and energy.

    We all do.

    MOVE ON.

    And when others raise the question of what to do about A** C****** … say, “nothing.”

    Or … just say nothing at all.

  • Al Barger

    Mr Gillick, I’m highly entertained by this same spiel that you post on every Ann Coulter related thread. You’ve got this thing where you won’t even say her name, as though the alphabetic symbols contain some voodoo power. It’s like she’s Cthulhu, “She Who Must Not Be Named.”

    Thing is, unlike Cthulhu, Ann Coulter is all too real. You think she’s like an evil Tinkerbell, and if you just quit believing she’ll wither up and die. Ain’t happening, not even if you hold your breath till your face turns blue.

  • nugget

    sounds like A** C****** really got to gillick. Have a beer, buddy.

  • JP

    Al, Coulter is a witch who should be burned at the stake immediately.

    Seriously. She believes that John Murtha is “The reason soldiers invented ‘fragging.’” Fragging, as you may or may not know, is a soldier attempting to kill his own officer.

    The fact that this low-life trash would stoop to advocating KILLING is a sign that this “woman” is bereft of any morals or any class.

    This was so over the top that conservative Mike Krempasky at posted, “I’ve said before that’s its kind of ironic that just about every phrase Stewie from Family Guy uses to describe Lois could easily be applied to Ann Coulter. Well — once again, Ann proves us right.” He went on to call her “fragging” remark absolutely “disgusting. … there’s no excuse — NONE — for the allusion to soldiers who kill other soldiers. It’s despicable — and frankly, so is Coulter.”

    Not that I read RedState, but I’m astonished that someone there spoke the truth. The fact that Ann Coulter is at the top of the best-seller list is a sign of how ethically and morally challenged our country really is right now.

  • JP

    Further Al, she may market her “skank” look and her figure, but I wouldn’t F her with your dick. I have taste.

  • mike

    Ann Coulter said in her book what needed to be said about using certain people to ptomote a leftist agenda. remaining parts of her book are trash.

  • Al Barger

    JP, if you’re going to play up her quote to Hawkins about Murtha, you might also have noted this quote from the same story in which Hawkins said, “Although, I wouldn’t have phrased that like Ann did, I would say in her defense that in that quote she didn’t say that she wanted to kill Murtha, she’d didn’t say that she thought he should be killed, and she didn’t say that she thought Murtha should have been fragged. Is that hair splitting?”

    Whereas you say, “Al, Coulter is a witch who should be burned at the stake immediately.


    That does appear to be saying that she should be killed.

    Plus, Murtha has turned out to be a punk-ass Democrat who does not support our troops and appears to be anxious to snatch defeat in Iraq from the jaws of victory, despite his own military background. That’s a lot more important than parsing her words or yours.

    She was expressing the frustration that a lot of soldiers apparently feel about this congressman, not advocating violence.

  • Arch Conservative

    If one more person rights another fucking post about Coulter they should be forced to have a three with her and Michael Moore.

  • JP

    Al, I wrote that in Coulterspeak. It’s rhetorical, don’t you get it? Like we’re all supposed to when the goddess herself does it?

  • Al Barger

    Yes JP, you cussed her. I’m not offended by the comment particularly, but just didn’t find it interesting. You should try to wrap the common vulgarity into some kind of more interesting intellectual shell. Otherwise, you’re saying nothing.

    Arch Conservative- Arch, buddy, pal, why you harshing on me like that. Michael Moore? How about we replace Natalie for Michael.

    Indeed, I should write a whole new column on Ann Coulter and the Dixie Chicks together.

  • Silas Kain

    I’d love to have sex with Ms. Coulter. She’s man enough for me!

  • Ann Coulter’s Ass

    What the fuck is wrong with you man? This woman is nothing more than a shill for the repugnican party!

    Why? Cause it’s an easy sell to the mindless drones such as yourself who buy into that party’s fascist shit.

    Get a plastic blow up sex doll to better satisfy your ass kissing infantilism.

  • Silas Kain

    That’s my point. Coulter and a plastic blow up doll. Not much difference between the two. At least the hot air can be let out of the doll.

  • Arch Conservative

    I’d rather have sex with natalie mains than ann coulter based on looks alone but natalie would probably want to talk about politics after and she wouldn’t shut up so then I’d have to beat her with a tire iron and throw her body in the river.

  • nonanon

    She’s trying to imply that these women unfairly received large amounts of money because of the events of September 11, 2001. However, private companies received large amounts of government welfare as a result of the incidents, which I don’t believe they should have received. Anyway, Ann must be against life insurance, too.

  • Al Barger

    Nonanon- You’re just wrong. Coulter never said that monetary payments to the widows were unfair. You might interpret her passing references to money as a minor elbow being thrown, but that’s not her issue with them.

    In general though, you do have a point about “private companies received large amounts of government welfare as a result of the incidents, which I don’t believe they should have received.” I would certainly agree (and Coulter would probably be sympathetic to the point) that any calamity from 9/11 to Katrina becomes the excuse for a buttload of taxpayer money to be thrown to the wind in every direction.

    Anyone who questions such propriety is, of course, a heartless bastard. I think “heartless bastard” is what Ann has listed as her occupation on her business cards- though I may just be making that part up.

  • Dan

    Al, love this piece. I know praise is anathema to you, so I won’t. But you get the drift.

  • Al Barger

    Thank you, Dan. I don’t necessarily need a lot of gushing praise- my ego’s not that weak. However, I’m not so egotistical that I can’t use a good “atta boy” now and again.

  • nugget

    wait. You guys actually listen to what she says?

    When I see a woman talking, my ears turn off and my “doable/non-doable” meter is active.

  • nugget

    A** C****** = do****. imo. lolz.

  • steve

    A.C. is one of my heroes. you wouldnt hate her so much if you didnt see her as so much of a threat. so for those who fear coulter…I salute you!!

  • Deliver US from Bush

    Annie isn’t a threat. She’s a parody. Weak-minded creationist-Republicans render themselves irrelevant by supporting her.

    Margaret [#12] – inflammatory remarks are Ann’s stock-in-trade – so that means Ann is silly. And she is.

    Anger is appropriate in the situation. We are in a WAR, a war for oil that was un-necessary and sold to us under false pretenses. Our “leaders” are deeply corrupt, incompetent, and dishonest. They are undermining our Constitutional Democracy by instituting a dictatorial executive branch and disregarding the law.

    Flat-Earth, “Heaven-Bound” Republicans are deeply irresponsible traitors, and don’t deserve to call themselves Americans. This administration’s contempt for our military is only part of the evidence of their treachery, and head-in-the-sand Neocons with their insolent, glib Coulter-ish attitudes are a disgrace for their selective reading and selective ignorance.

    Creationist, faith-based Republicans are irresponsible – they have abdicated their duties as citizens, by ignoring reality.

    Murtha et al. are people who actually were in the military, who fought in wars, have authority, while draft-dodging desk jockeys like Bush, Rumsfeld, Rove, and O’Reilly are insolent twerps and should shut their mouths and let the grownups run things.

  • Dr. Benjamin Afzal

    JOHN THOMAS GILLICK. Are you suggesting the ignorance is bliss theory and with full understanding is a nonworkable philosophy engraved for failure? I have not indulged myself with Ms. Coulter book. Now with enquizitive pause perhaps will partake. Realizing the left at one time monopolized all information on the so called drive by networks. The NY and LA Times included. Enter the internet, FOX News and talk radio. What was political progressiveness finds itself in full retreat. Whether one is acceptable to plagerized content is errelivent and benchmarked with or absent of negative hallmarks. Shall we deprive the child, wide eyed in wondermint gazing the selections set before them at the candy store.

  • Staci Schoff

    She’s easier to hate for me, since I’m not the least bit interested in “doing” her. My god, her hands are bigger than Kobe Bryant’s… she’s frightening. Nice legs though, I’ll give her that.

  • Ernesto Moreno

    I would love to see an interview(or debate) on Obama and VP, or any group of Dems, provided by Ann Coulter, Monica Crowly, and my self. Liberals lack reasonableness, and astray from sound thinking when pummeled by logic. It’s all too real. Conservatives can hit you(nicely)with all sorts of reasonableness, and libs would resort to attacks shouldered by tinsel or delusional hype, popular thinking, or trend and fashion. When Ann speaks, her words open up doorways that libs would rather keep closed, ignoring whats meaningful and responsible. We can argue for life, and, even if God himself spoke with you, libs would still deny him. Facts can cross their path, and libs would still be delirious in accepting the truth and soundness of it…Any well educated Conservative can take on or debate any group of educated Liberals. It’s been proven. Facts are, liberals resort to sarcasm and personal insults, while Conservatives back themselves with facts and reason, even if we admit to being wrong(which libs are hard pressed to do).

  • Bliffle

    You’re a saint, Ernesto.

  • Richard Clark

    Freewheelin Bob Dylan Retains Same Illuminati Law Firm as George W. Bush in Fifteen Year Plagiarism Law Suit. Also suppresses Plaintiff’s First Amendment Rights acquiring a protective order designating all video taped depositions that are incriminating to Dylan confidential

    Bob Dylan & his law firm acquired a confidentiality order in a fifteen year plagiarism law suit designating all discovery materials including fifty hours of incriminating video taped depositions as confidential suppressing Plaintiff James Damiano’s first amendment rights to warn the public of Judicial favoritism and corruption.

    Camden NJ June 2, 2009 -Few artists can lay claim to the controversy that has surrounded the career of songwriter James Damiano. Twenty-two years ago James Damiano began an odyssey that led him into a legal maelstrom with Bob Dylan that, to this day, fascinates the greatest of intellectual minds.

    As the curtain rises on the stage of deceit we learn that CBS used songs and lyrics for international recording artist, Bob Dylan. Bob Dylan’s name is credited to the songs. One of those songs is nominated for a Grammy as best rock song of the year. Ironically the title of that song is Dignity.

    Since auditioning for the legendary CBS Record producer John Hammond, Sr., who influenced the careers of music industry icons Billy Holiday, Bob Dylan, Pete Seger, Bruce Springsteen and Stevie Ray Vaughan, James has engaged in a multimillion dollar copyright infringement law suit with Bob Dylan.

    As per court proceedings, “It is judicially uncontested by Bob Dylan and or Bob Dylan’s law firms Manatt, Phelps & Phillips , Parcher Hayes & Snyder, Gibson Dunn & Crutcher, Heck Brown and Sherry and Sony House Counsel that Bob Dylan and people in Bob Dylan’s entourage have solicited James Damiano’s songs and music for over ten years and eleven months.”

    Interestingly enough, District Judge Jerome B. Simandle states in his decision “This court will accept as true Plaintiff’s allegations that Sony represented to him that he would be credited and compensated for his work if Dylan used it. Judge Simandle also stated in his decision “Plaintiff has demonstrated a genuine issue of material fact as to whether defendants had access to his work”.

    Read more the Bob Dylan James Damiano Story

    Richard Clark
    [Personal contact info deleted]

  • Sprmcandy

    Ann is a pretty lady.