Thursday, January 17, 2008

How to read Ann Coulter

Many people have a hard time reading Ann Coulter's articles, regardless which topic she writes about. The leather-skirt-wearing, long-haired blonde, will-someone-feed-me-a-Twinkie conservative writer's opinions are sometimes hard to discern between the humor, historical citations, and acerbic criticisms of all people and events. Her style is both offensive and endearing, but which it is depends heavily on the reader's palate.

Her most recent column, The Elephant in the Room, is no different. Between her disparaging remarks on McCain, Huckabee, Iowa and New Hampshire voters, Democrats, Republicans, the New York Times, Frank Rich, Giuliani, Bill Clinton, (did I leave anybody out?) oh, yea--Billy Carter, Ann Coulter makes an interesting observation; Mitt Romney must be the Republican's best candidate (as in, the most Republican of the field) because Democrats are working so hard to discredit him.

Now, the fun part about reading this article is looking at it from the other point of view. Which Democrat(s) are Republicans working so hard to discredit, and does that suggest those Democratic candidates Republicans are worked into a froth over are the best standard-bearers for liberals?

Unless the entire Democratic establishment is attempting some kind of reverse-psychology, Democrat's tacit approval of McCain and Huckabee should make conservatives wonder about both candidates true conservative credentials.

In March 2007, I wrote Accrediting your Adversary to warn against talking more about your opponent than yourself. In the same way Voldemort marked Harry Potter as his equal (to his own demise) candidates from one party often boost the popularity (and power) of candidates in the other. The more Republicans talked about Clinton and Obama the more credible they became. Ann Coulter's suggesting the more Democrats beat-up on Mitt Romney the more credible he becomes. Even if Republicans don't recognize Romney's conservative credentials, the Democrats do.

This is, of course, how contemporary politics work. Each party seems more concerned with defeating their enemy than they are what's best for The United States of America, and they'll make all kinds of promises to voters, even at the country's expense, if it means winning. A victory for either party means an injury to the other--and well run, efficient, constitutional government be damned. Job losses, budget deficits, national debt, oil dependence, education, and creeping socialism are simply collateral damage on the home-war front.

Instead of a quad-annual game of capture-the-flag, it would be fun to recapture America.


  1. How Can any conservative vote for Romney?

    He was listed as one of the top ten Republicans in Name Only by Human Events Magazine.

    What will he be after the primary?

    And would he be another George Bush if he gets elected?

  2. If elected, I hope he doesn't end-up to be another George Bush. Bush may be many things, but a fiscal conservative he's not. That's where he's alienated the conservative base.

  3. I find the best way to read Ann Coulter is to NOT.

    Then again, I've always liked brunettes.


  4. The best thing to keep in mind when reading something by Ann Coulter is that Ann Coulter doesn't matter.

    That's the opposite that Ann Coulter intends. When she endorsed Mitt Romney in February of 2007 instead of Duncan Hunter she proved it was about Ann Coulter.

    For whatever reason you supported Mitt Romney the worst reason to support Mitt Romney is because Ann Coulter told you to. I suspect that's why she'd campaign for Hillary.

    If you forget that it is Ann Coulter, then the Mitt Romney pieces are irrelevant for her purposes and are in fact empty, even if they parallel truth.

    If you forget that it is Ann Coulter the social critiques are relevant. I enjoyed her critique on Sex in the City's inherent homosexuality and its homosexual subtexts and I thought it was insightful.

    If you forget that it is Ann Coulter than the stuff meant to make you laugh... will succeed.

  5. "When she endorsed Mitt Romney in February of 2007 instead of Duncan Hunter she proved it was about Ann Coulter."

    Where did she do that? Her comments at CPAC last year indicated she thought Romney was the best republican candidate (Gingrich excluded) but I missed where it was all "about Ann Coulter." And saying he was the best candidate isn't quite an endorsement, or at least I think endorsements should come with some other tangible aid; money, campaigning, public appearances and such. But I'm unsure many (any?) candidates would have wanted her on-stage with them.

    "If you forget that it is Ann Coulter than the stuff meant to make you laugh... will succeed."

    Except the stuff that makes you laugh when reading Ann is quintessential Coulter and couldn't be written by anyone else.

    I don't think you need to forget it's Ann Coulter, you need to be able to ignore the insults to get the point she's making. Of course, the insults are where the laughs are, but hidden between the them are the political sticks and stones only she seems willing to throw.