Coulter Peddling the Drug of Ignorance

It didn’t take long for Ann Coulter to get on my bad side again.

On CNBC’s “The Big Idea with Donnie Deutsch” this past Tuesday, Coulter described President Bill Clinton as displaying “latent homosexual” behavior. The conversation, which was inane from the start, didn’t really go anywhere but was indicative of Coulter’s narrow-mindedness.

Wonderful insight:

DEUTSCH: But where’s the — but where’s the homosexual part of that? I’m — once again, I’m speechless here.

Ms. COULTER: It’s reminiscent of a bathhouse. It’s just this obsession with your own — with your own essence.

DEUTSCH: But why is that homosexual? You could say narcissistic.

Ms. COULTER: Right.

DEUTSCH: You could say nymphomaniac.

Ms. COULTER: Well, there is something narcissistic about homosexuality. Right? Because you’re in love with someone who looks like you. I’m not breaking new territory here, why are you looking at me like that?

President Clinton has been called a lot of things, but this might be a first. Homosexual is the last thing you associate with Clinton, except for that whole “don’t ask don’t tell” thing.

You can read the rest of this ridiculous interview here.

I considered not discussing the matter, for although the material is incensing, it’s also somewhat irrelevant. What can my readers, or any committed citizen, learn from Ann Coulter’s comments? Nothing, there is nothing productive that comes from this. Coulter is the uber-pundit, the voice of irrationality, the devil’s advocate in almost a literal sense. And her interview on Tuesday simply shows the level of her desperation in an attempt to belittle liberalism. Clinton was the bastion of liberal hope in the 1990s. Gay people are “narcissistic” and bad. Clinton is bad. Clinton is gay.

I know I should stop giving Coulter the time of day because her infantile logic is horrendously stupefying, but I simply cannot resist highlighting her faults. It’s affirmation of my belief that most of the people in this business talk simply to make noise, not to add to the national debate. Coulter’s career has been based on extreme viewpoints and harsh rhetoric. She has turned politics into a form of entertainment, which I cannot completely condemn her for. But to make absurd statements and to reinforce them with even more absurd logic is just a testament to Coulter’s loosening grip on reason.

Listening to Ann Coulter is like smoking crack: the temporary entertaining pleasure one receive’s from it is quickly overshadowed by horribly malicious retarding side-effects, but the cravings are too intense to consider the dangerous influence. It’s an addiction I’m sure a lot of us share, whether we want to admit it or not.

 

I Hate to Admit it…but Coulter is Right (Pun not intended)

Every Thursday I glibly read Ann Coulter’s weekly column, usually in a vain attempt to pick the brain of an aggressive uber-conservative dominatrix. However, today’s column struck me as somewhat profound, not the typical Coulterian fare of insults and banter.

As she describes:

Democrats can’t come out and admit that they refuse to fight any war in defense of America, so they utter the “Where’s Osama?” incantation to pretend that they’d be doing something. To wit: dedicating the entire resources of the U.S. military to locating Osama bin Laden.

After making the capture of Osama bin Laden their sole objective in the war on terrorism, now Democrats expect us to believe they would have been fighting every other Muslim jihadist on the planet like mad — just not one of the main sponsors of Islamic terrorism, Saddam Hussein.

Read the rest here.

Coulter is correct in saying that the search for Osama Bin-Forgotten is an overly-simplistic and political excuse to maintain credibility in the war on terror. Lets face it: Islamic fundamentalism might have a poster boy in Bin Laden, but it by no means will end with his capture or demise. It’s hard to believe, but this problem has plagued the world before September 11th; Coulter provides great historical background in her piece.

Democrats could ironically learn from this piece. Tangible goals in the war on terror need to be provided by the liberal camp if they wish to regain political power in this nation. The security threat of terrorism and the current wars in the Middle East are all linked to national interest, power politics, and historical humiliation. It hurts me to admit Coulter is right, much as Fonzie had a difficult time admitting that he himself was wrong, but her assessment of Kerry and the, to bring back an old term, “vanilla” democrats is right on the money: their foreign policy, much like the party leadership, is in need of a makeover.

America needs to remove the iingrained association between Bin Laden and Islamic Fundamentalism, for one is simly a moving part in a more complex, maniacal machine. If we truly want to address this issue and protect our nation security, then perhaps we should take a page out of Coulter’s book and look to the broader horizon with more resolve.

 

…But Before I Do

This pretty much sums up the Ann Coulter post (that conniving unoriginal bitch):

 

Ann Coulter: Death to the New York Times!

Ann Coulter is up to her usual polarizing shenanigans, this time targeting the New York Times and the recent criticism it has taken over the leak of a story dealing with excessive oversight into financial records. Some excerpts:

Today, Times editors and columnists are doing what liberals always do when they’re caught red-handed committing treason: They scream that they’re being “intimidated” before hurling more invective. This is getting to be like listening to the Soviet Union complaining about the intimidation coming from Finland.

Liberals are always play-acting that they are under some monstrous attack from the right wing as they insouciantly place all Americans in danger. Their default position is umbrage, bordering on high dudgeon.

We’ve had to listen to them whine for 50 years about the brute Joe McCarthy, whose name liberals blackened while sheltering Soviet spies.

I absolutely love how Ms. Coulter simply imagines liberals “screaming” about attacks upon our liberty while Republicans sit back and actively fight for our own security. And “whining” about Joe McCarthy? Since when did standing up for our rights amidst an encroaching overlord become “treason”? And who exactly is Ms. Coulter speaking on behalf of? Conservatives or neo-fascists? Coulter’s messages are unintelligible and alienating, even to the party she supposedly speaks for.

You can read the rest of her post here if you feel like it.

I know I’m not the only person who thinks this article, like the author, is demented. Extremism, I suppose, is like tequila: its good, but only in occasional small quantities and on the right occasion. If this is the case, then Ann Coulter is throwing a party and is taking body shots off of every person in the room.

Ann Coulter’s mouth (and its manifestation in text form) is an anus spitting out untold buckets of shit. The fact that she proposes the NY Times building should have been targeted by terrorists and her desire to “execute” traitors shows that in her pursuit of the destruction of liberalism she has lost what heart and soul she might have once had. She is the manifestation of what America should not become: loathing paranoid entities bent on establishing an illusion of security.

Her recent criticism of 9/11 widows and Arab-Americans simply reinforces a past point: just because you have the right to free speech does not mean you should exploit it for disgusting means.

Extremism is an inevitable result of passion, and no doubt Coulter is passionate. But her response is to instigate, not enlighten. She is quick to condemn, but seldomly prescribes any solutions. She’s like the ex-girlfriend we have all had: attractive (yes, I am strangely attracted to the anti-Christ in svelte female form, I do not know why nor can I help it) no doubt, but extraordinarily able to push every single button we have. Yet we constantly put up with her incessant ranting and absorb it with open ears. Why?

I’m convinced that she, like the aforementioned ex-girlfriend, gets a rise out of it. Well, congrats Ms. Coulter, because you once again succeeded at what you do best: piss me off.

 

Bedtime Stories by Ann Coulter

Apparently there are children’s books for conservative families to help ward off “the moral disease” liberalism:

The opening premise of Help! Mom! is straightforward enough: Two grade-school brothers set out to earn money for a new swing set by opening a lemonade stand. But, when the aspiring entrepreneurs dream one night about “a very strange place called Liberaland,” the story shifts into satire-saturated adult fare, as a series of “dastardly Liberals” pop up to meddle in the venture. A Ted Kennedy look-alike (“Mayor Leach”) demands half the boys’ take in taxes, a Hillary Clinton-inspired “Congresswoman Clunkton” makes them cut the sugar in their product and give out broccoli with each glass, and an “lclu” lawyer replaces their picture of Jesus with that of a big toe.

If you’re interested, read more here.

While I would like to think that this is satirical literary fare intended for the right wing mothers and fathers of America, I shudder to think what could possibly be read in Rush Limbaugh’s nursery. Here’s a story pitch: a new tale about the aforementioned brothers grudgingly giving up half of their lemonade earnings to help pill-popping heroin junkie Humpty Dumpty, who just fell off the wall during a drug-induced daze and now will take advantage of all the king’s men (who should be instead serving the greater interest of the kingdom abroad) and leech off of the system in a nice metropolitan hospital, obviously at the expense of the honest working, morally sound children who are just trying to purchase that swing set.