SubscribeAn Academic Exegesis On ‘Coulter-ism’
From Borderlands E-Journal:
Ann Coulter and the Problem of Pluralism: From Values to Politics
Samuel A. Chambers & Alan Finlayson
Johns Hopkins University & Swansea UniversityThis piece operates at two levels: it engages with the debate in political theory over pluralism, but it does so through an analysis of the phenomenon we call ‘Coulterism’. Briefly, we regard Ann Coulter as indicative of a more general trend in the political styles and activities that dominate contemporary US politics. Moreover, we also suggest that this trend tends to be too easily dismissed by liberals – liberals who, we suggest, tend to systematically misunderstand it. Furthermore, we contend, no doubt controversially, that Coulter and her ilk in fact succeed in a political critique of mainstream political liberalism in America and that the failure of liberalism to recognise this fact lies at the heart of many of its problems – be they conceptual, electoral, ideological or governmental. Precisely because it cannot comprehend what has been achieved by its opponents, liberalism is unable properly to respond to them. Thus, we undertake a critical consideration of the way in which contemporary liberal political theory regards values as the only meaningful level of pluralism, construes this putative fact as giving rise to a host of problems, and then, in response, imposes its presupposed solutions. In response, we call for a radical, multi-dimensional pluralism; we choose the pluralisation of democracy over the liberal project to protect democracy through normative principles. Such multidimensional pluralism requires that the political theorist act less as a city planner who makes rules and designs models, and more as an explorer who discovers new formations. Thus, we eschew a liberal response to ‘Coulterism’, suggesting that successful challenges to phenomena such as these can only emerge on the terrain of politics.
[O]ur future would be one of an ever deeper confrontation with pluralism and … political theory in such a world would produce paradoxes out of platitudes far more than the reverse (White 2002: 474).
Introduction
1. Contemporary liberal political theory has reached its own internal limit – and that limit is politics. When confronted by today’s proliferating political claims, the ‘normative’ approach of liberal political philosophy finds itself on the horns of a dilemma: either it stretches its universality in order to cover more cases, or it hardens its edges in an attempt to maintain critical purchase. But the former choice makes liberal theory so thin that it no longer clothes even the most modest of claims. And in taking the latter approach, liberal theory is forced to declare it ‘reasonable’ to place so-called indecent peoples beyond the purview of universal human rights. To maintain its commitment to universalism, liberalism must become meaningless; to remain meaningful, it must become illiberal. Divided within itself, the limits of liberalism belong entirely to it alone…
So now Ann Coulter is officially a political phenomenon.
Moreover, she is part of an “ilk.” Though we like to think of her as an ilk of one.
Some highlights:
Political Theory and the Ann Coulter Question
11. Ann Coulter is a living rebuke to almost all of contemporary liberal philosophy. One of the most successful of contemporary Conservative media polemicists, Coulter breaks every rule of ‘fair and balanced’ discourse that liberal political theory has sweated to justify and that Fox News openly mocks with its own tag line. Utilising the media outlets of a powerful private and international corporation to portray liberalism as an intolerant creed functioning only to enhance the self-interest of its believers, Coulter is proof that every principle of fairness and equality, for which liberalism has so laboured to dig secure foundations, is almost entirely irrelevant.
12. The Coulter style is instantly recognisable; her visual image and appearance are carefully crafted. She dresses and is photographed in ways that emphasise her big-eyed, blonde femininity, yet overlays this background with sometimes shocking invective and the manner of the school headmistress-cum-dominatrix. She signals sexuality but not availability; she dominates without threatening (at least not straight men). And this is much more than ‘mere’ image. Coulter’s political performances make heavy use of tropes of appropriate and inappropriate gender and sexuality. For example, in 2004 she described the Democratic National Convention as ‘the Spawn of Satan convention in Boston’ and the women attending as ‘corn-fed, no make-up, natural fiber, no-bra needing, sandal-wearing, hirsute, somewhat fragrant hippie chick pie wagons’ (Lacayo & Stein 2004)…
13. Coulter not only advocates ‘intelligent design’ (an outright rejection of the theory of evolution) but goes further to define Darwinism as liberalism’s ‘creation myth’. She consistently excoriates liberals as ‘treasonous’, describing them as people who constantly attack and undermine their own country. And, to the extent that Coulter is known internationally, it is for seeming to share Wahhabi lust for a global religious war. After 9/11 she wrote: ‘We know who the homicidal maniacs are. They are the ones cheering and dancing right now. We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity’. This is not an isolated remark. Coulter continues to refer gleefully to Arabs as ‘ragheads’, ‘jihad-monkeys’, ‘tent-merchants’ and ‘camel jockeys’ (Coulter 2006b).
14. On the basis of these radical ramblings it is not only extremely easy but also terribly tempting to dismiss Coulter as a minor media-made irritant, a flaky extremist or just another pundit… But all five of her books, from her 1989 indictment of Bill Clinton through to Godless, have topped the New York Times’ best-seller list… It is a safe bet that Ann Coulter is much better known amongst Americans than John Rawls or Joshua Cohen will ever be. Furthermore, while Coulter may be on the edge of the American political spectrum this is simply indicative of how far the centre has been pulled to the right. And it has been pulled there by people such as Coulter, who herself must be understood as part of a much more general and highly successful political style that has achieved national prominence thanks to channels such as Fox News, talk radio and, latterly, internet conservative town-halls and blog fora.
15. Understood in this context, we would contend that ‘Coulterism’ is one of the most important political developments of our time. If political theorists were like theorists and historians of Art then we would certainly identify ‘Coulterism’ as a significant and powerful trend in the style and practice of political art: one which has reverberated throughout the entirety of its institutions and forced reactions and adaptations from almost all other artists. Unfortunately, at least from our perspective, political scholars are not like art historians and theorists. Very often we take our cue not from what is happening but instead beaver away at small and focused problems generated from within our own field of action. But phenomena such as Coulterism are central not marginal to politics…
And it goes on and on in similarly obtuse scholarly prose — all the way to belabored point 54.
Still, it is an (albeit unintentionally) hilarious read, if you’ve got some time to kill.
Academia at its laughable best.
32 Responses to “An Academic Exegesis On ‘Coulter-ism’”
Leave a Reply
You must be registered and logged in to post a comment.
July 28th, 2008 at 3:28 pm
Smart and gorgeous = my kinda woman.
July 28th, 2008 at 4:03 pm
….”It is a safe bet that Ann Coulter is much better known amongst Americans than John Rawls or Joshua Cohen….”
She is! And for one very obvious reason. She makes more sense than either of the aforementioned morons, has a quicker wit, and is a whole lot easier on the eyes, too!
July 28th, 2008 at 5:09 pm
I couldn’t agree more SG. These two mental midgets, Chambers and Finlayson, should get their money back from Johns Hopkins’ and Swansea because obviously, their college education didn’t embed in their grey matter.
Talk about a rambling exegesis, my oh my….
Take for instance point #13, it begins with the following;
OK, one would assume this point would deal with AC’s belief in ID or Creationism versus the liberal mantra of Darwinism. But no, these two a**clowns give us the following;
Holy mackerel! What road map of a qualitative argument are these two following? How did we get from ID / Creationism to “treasonous liberals” and Coulter’s well deserved loathing of radical mooselimbs, all in the same paragraph?
I must have missed where they jumped the shark.
July 28th, 2008 at 6:24 pm
Ann has no doubt been waiting for Samuel and Alan to define her and her ilk officially. The pre-eminent alpha female of our time would, on her worst day, leave these two in the ditch. She skewers the Left better than anyone; they are so deserving of it–and more.
July 28th, 2008 at 6:46 pm
“And more”.
The thing that they all hate most, and which I love best, is that she rarely fails to deliver honest to goodness humor. More than anything, angry people hate to be laughed at. Ann must have figured that out in childhood and just grew up to apply it to the people who need some humbling the most. Of course, I can’t vouch for her ability to take it when it’s directed at her. I probably don’t watch enough Fox News.
July 28th, 2008 at 9:23 pm
Typical for academia types to call anyone that disagrees with them “ilk.”
Hey pinheads! It’s a little tougher dealing with people that have an intellect much greater than your own, isn’t it? Unfortunately for you, there are those that hear your propaganda outside of the 18-21 year olds in your classroom. When they respond, this is your pathetic response. Hardly convincing and, mostly, just a notch above Grad Assistant level at any local indoctrination center a.k.a. the closest University. Your pitiful repose indicates that you’re threatened. Good.
July 28th, 2008 at 10:31 pm
Chambers and Finlayson finish their wordy and boring psuedo expose on Coulter, then drive to the special dungeon of “Mistress Cruella” to have their bottoms warmed by her riding crop….as she whispers how pathetic and worthless they are….
and they agree or suffer more whacks to their winkys…..then drive back to class, and write more stinging expose’s about women they loathe, fear, and secretly desire to serve like doormats….
people of their “ilk” have systematically removed intelligence from universities and replaced it with the abject stupidity of self promotion and opinion as fact. The simple fact is, they are jealous of her….and resent her popularity over their own….because they want her approval.
The approval they never got as children. That is why ever time they take a pelosi and wipe their sheehans, and flush the reid, what they touch reminds them of what they are. anal asswipes.
July 28th, 2008 at 11:16 pm
I imagine these authors sitting in front of their computers fondling themsleves while … wait, I imagine these academics sitting around a living room in black berets, smoking unfiltered Gauloise while they fondle each other … wait, that’s still not quite right. I imagine these pedantic knuckleheads dressing up as Che Guevara doing an unnatural act with Nancy Pelosi with a transexual cross dresser made up as Harry Reid telling them - in a condescnending manner - what they can do, and what they can’t do.
Oh, bother. Your head is so far up your ass you’ve mistaken your pyloric valve for a mouth when you accuse Anne Coulter of exactly what you’re doing.
That’s some wicked dope you’re smoking, Mr. Samuels.
July 29th, 2008 at 12:59 am
Chambers and Finlayson are way off concerning Coulter. But the fact is that in the last year, Coulter’s political senses have also been way off.
July 29th, 2008 at 5:50 am
Oh my! These guys sound like 16 year old dope smokers.
July 29th, 2008 at 5:58 am
OK, Phil, I’ll bite, how have Ann’s political senses been off?
I agree with her that Hillary may have well been a better choice for President than McCain, and that the only way I could possibly vote for McCain come November is to be drunk.
July 29th, 2008 at 6:35 am
Looks to me like William Ayers has done his work well. The liberals of America have learned a lot of words and know nothing.
July 29th, 2008 at 9:17 am
Those who think Ann’s been off this year - don’t understand that (unlike any liberal whiner at all) she is just as critical and harsh with her own as she is with those of the other side. I just happen to agree with her - I am finding it hard, to say the least, to vote for any of the offerings - Obamantion is a dangerous, self-hating, racist, socialist empty suit, McCain is too cozy with the Shamnesty crowd and was the ‘appointed’ RNC candidate - who believed the msm hype that no one who wasn’t a RHINO would ever win the election and Barr, et al are promoting some of the most foaming at the mouth craziness buried underneath a one good issue and/or sound point (which actually defines them all in a way).
I think what is really the flumox (sp?) to these two clowns is that in their world - hot looking women don’t use their brain cells at all. Ever.
July 29th, 2008 at 12:08 pm
There are actually a few points in the introduction of the exegesis that I would be hard pressed to disagree with.
I’d have to agree with that, though probably not for reasons that the authors would suspect. Ms. Coulter’s political critique of mainstream political liberalism is successful precisely because:
A) mainstream political liberalism is devoid of intellectual honesty, and
B) mainstream political liberalism is dependent upon a ‘enforce equal outcomes regardless of ability’ mentality.
Including the word ‘ilk’ only further enhances the ad hominen attack modality, pointedly reminding us of the weakness of the authors’ arguments.
Once again, this further highlights the real reason for Ms. Coulter’s success, though the authors give us hope that they will eventually comprehend it - that is, unless they pick themselves up as if nothing has happened after stumbling over the truth. However, it follows that the reason that liberalism cannot respond to ‘them’ is simply because to recognize the real reason for her success would be to recognize the abject chasm in which modern political liberalism finds itself - because to comprehend the achievement, one would have to judge between the success of ‘them’ and the failure of ‘us’; something that is antagonistic to a ‘universal pluralist’ mentality (In every world except the universalist’s world, there is the possibility of one thing being better than another, which means that there is the possibility of something being worse than another - even totallly, utterly worse). And the hopelessness of the abject chasm is exactly what we see from the authors - for directly after they bemoan the failure of modern liberalism, they proceed to “…eschew a liberal response” to “Coulterism”.
This is a nonsense statement, reminicient of the Mad Hatter’s tea party. Like the Hatter, the authors are guilty of “murdering the time” with nonsensical and useless metre. (i.e. The limit of politics is politics)
While I am sure that the term liberalism does not mean what the authors claim it means - namely, that liberalism equals universalism - I will agree with the authors that they believe that liberalism means universalism (or pluralism). However, I would argue that the authors haven’t quite grasped that by their own admission - modern liberalism’s embrace of universalism at all costs - liberalism has demolished the very tools by which it could begin to comprehend. It’s as if the Liberal Man has willfully regressed into the Liberal Baby, and then attempts to assert itself into the World of Men. One of the absolute tenet’s of modern liberalism is the belief in militant deconstructionism and nihilism - as such, words (and thought, and action, etc…) have no definite meaning; thus Truth cannot exist; thus, there cannot be a real basis for comprehension; thus, there cannot be a comprehension of “success”. This is the full blossom of the term “liberalism must become meaningless; to remain meaningful, it must become illiberal”. I would argue that liberalism has already fully bloomed.
With this vaporous foundation so carefully laid, the authors then attempt to delve into the spirit of Ms. Coulter and her (ad hominen) ilk. Of course, the authors fail to do so, and by their own admission, are inequipped to do so. While it makes for some interesting reading (of the sort where you read grammar school essays for the funny, inadvertant quips that kids always come up with), it quickly becomes droll and mundane (as grading those same grammar school essays), and is of the sort very much like “This summer vacation, I went to …” I would not recommend except as a discourse in critical reading.
July 29th, 2008 at 12:23 pm
@Arctain - Nicely done, sir. Bravo.
July 29th, 2008 at 12:49 pm
Oh, Oh, can I be an ilk? I wanna be an ilk. This article just cracks me up! LOL Who raised Samuel A. Chambers & Alan Finlayson? Disney characters? They do not have a grasp on reality.
Ann Coulter is one of the finest Conservative writers/satirists that ever existed. Sam and Alan are just jealous!
Arctain, well said!
July 29th, 2008 at 12:54 pm
Arctain; Whew! Rebuttal with a flourish. ;-}
Allow me to summarize. Because they are “liberals”, they don’t “get it”. Or maybe because they don’t “get it”, they are “liberals”. Either way liberals have a self-identity problem. That’s the reason they must continually re-define themselves–ie. “progressive”, or “pluralist”, or “universalist”–or re-define the WORDS they use to describe themselves. Descriptions that have little real meaning outside their own sphere. We know exactly what they are, and they don’t.
July 29th, 2008 at 1:05 pm
Who the hell is John Rawls and Joshua Cohen?
July 29th, 2008 at 1:12 pm
Typical….liberals can’t beat her argument, so they try to marginalize her.
They do the same with Fox News, etc., which is why I can’t get FNC at my health club cardio area, airports, and several hotel channels…liberals find ways to block Fox News whereever and how ever they can.
They’ve marginalized the successes in Iraq as well. In today’s WSJ OpEd section there’s a story about the IOC banning Iraq from the Bejing Olympics for loading their committee with politicians. Apparently they didn’t have any problems with Iraq when Uday Hussein was running the show, torturing athletes, etc.
July 29th, 2008 at 1:22 pm
….”Apparently they didn’t have any problems with Iraq when Uday Hussein was running the show, torturing athletes, etc…..”
Which is precisely why I won’t watch any of the Olympics. That and the fact that it is such a sham. The concept has been bastardized to the point it is meaningless–much like a Nobel Prize or an Oscar. I refuse to lend any legitimacy to any of it. May China go bankrupt putting on their dog-and-pony show.
July 29th, 2008 at 1:41 pm
Frankly, I can’t get enough of Ann Coulter. Before her I was enamoured of Camille Paglia for rigorous independence and pro-sex feminism. Then along came Ann, filled with mischief and ready to fight. She’s twice the man and twice the woman we are used to seeing in the public eye. She’s a female H. L. Mencken without the bitter atheism. She’s a hetero-Paglia. I find her hilarious and brilliant and sexy. I can’t stand it.
July 29th, 2008 at 1:45 pm
Joshua Cohen at Stanford - Professor Joshua Cohen is a political theorist, trained in philosophy, with a special interest in issues that lie at the intersection of democratic norms and institutions. He has written extensively on issues of democratic theory, particularly on the theory of deliberative democracy, and the implications of that idea for issues of personal liberty, freedom of expression, electoral finance, and new forms of associative and direct-democratic participation. He is currently working on issues of global justice, including the foundations of human rights, distributive fairness, and supra-national democratic governance. from: http://politicalscience.stanfo.....cohen.html
John Rawls at Harvard (b.1921 - d.2002)- American political and ethical philosopher, best known for his defense of egalitarian liberalism in his major work, A Theory of Justice (1971). He is widely considered the most important political philosopher of the 20th century. In a term Rawls defined as “Original Position,” any group of individuals would be led by reason and self-interest to agree to the following principles:
(1) Each person is to have an equal right to the most extensive basic liberty compatible with a similar liberty for others.
(2) Social and economic inequalities are to be arranged so that they are both (a) to the greatest benefit of the least advantaged and (b) attached to offices and positions open to all under conditions of fair equality of opportunity.
In Rawls’s view, Soviet-style communism is unjust because it is incompatible with most basic liberties and because it does not provide everyone with a fair and equal opportunity to obtain desirable offices and positions. Pure laissez-faire capitalism is also unjust, because it tends to produce an unjust distribution of wealth and income (concentrated in the hands of a few), which in turn effectively deprives some (if not most) citizens of the basic means necessary to compete fairly for desirable offices and positions. A just society, according to Rawls, would be a “property-owning democracy” in which ownership of the means of production is widely distributed and those who are worst off are prosperous enough to be economically independent. Although Rawls generally avoided discussion of specific political arrangements, his work is widely interpreted as providing a philosophical foundation for egalitarian liberalism as imperfectly manifested in the modern capitalist welfare state or in a market-oriented social democracy.
from: http://www.britannica.com
July 29th, 2008 at 2:02 pm
Arctain; In the case of the two individuals mentioned above, we have one each, a Communist (after his own design), and a Socialist, not necessarily in that order, each of whom believe that his (their) failed form of governance is superior to the one we have in the US. They believe the only reason for the continued failure(s) of Communism and/or Socialism is that the “right people” haven’t been in charge. It is a pity we continue to pay them to indoctrinate our youth with such pap.
Once again, thanks for your research. I have read them, but couldn’t recall when or where, nor how to link to them.
July 29th, 2008 at 2:36 pm
JohnMG,
You are correct - they have been interpreted as advocates for the idea that socialism and/or communism has only been imperfectly attempted, and supercedes the so-called failed form of representative federalism with capitalism as an economic base that is the United States.
These two (and a host of other like-minded individuals) are the heroes and darlings of folks on the left, and hearing the words of Michelle Obama tell us what life will be like under an Obama presidency reminds me of how much Mr. Obama would like to indoctrinate the US into either a capitalist welfare state or a social democracy (some people worry that we are already there…)
I think I did a fairly good job (thanks for all the kind words, folks) of highlighting the fact that the ‘implementers’ of these theories have no moral compass to guide them - and that universal pluralism excludes, by very definition, the necessary toolset to succeed in the long run. However, in the short run, we’ll have to oppose this egalitarian liberalism as it attempts ascendency - the further down the road to social democracy or capitalistic welfare state we go, the further we’ll have to catch-up to build a truely just (where good is rewarded, and bad is punished) and truely merciful (where we help those so that they can help themselves - not because they deserve it, but because we deserve to) world.
July 29th, 2008 at 3:51 pm
“doing an unnatural act with Nancy Pelosi”
In my case any act done with Pelosi is by definition unnatural.
Oh, yeah, she is from San Francisco.
By unnatural I mean abnormal.
July 29th, 2008 at 4:01 pm
I just read Pelosi’s admontion that she “is trying to save the world!” That is just one of the idiotic, grandiose statements she makes. I am just flabbergasted—how do bizarre creatures like this get so far in our government?!
July 29th, 2008 at 4:44 pm
You have to persevere and employ a considerable amount of translation from the cumbersome, puffed-up, obfuscating academic gobbledygook to glean the fact that these two are actually acceding defeat to our warrior hero, and are actually abandoning the old battlements as represented by Cohen and Rawls. First, they seem to be advocating that the left actually embrace Ann, then go on to lay out their new strategy- namely, to get down and dirty as she does! And they do this even after admitting that they get it that Ann is merely turning the tables on liberals by parodying their tactics, albeit with far more incisive wit and logic than they. Here, read it for yourself!
53. Moreover, we also wish to stress that the shift from the normative to the political neither amounts to nor requires giving up the theoretical moment. Instead, this shift of terrain calls for the practice a different kind of theory: not justificatory but strategic. A theory concerned to explicate political conjunctures and to identify opportunities for expansion. Doing this sort of theory means posing questions that are rarely, if ever, posed by academic liberal theory. Instead of asking about the extent of toleration, or the justification of its withdrawal we instead ask, of what elements are Coulterist constituencies composed? By what appeals, tropes and interests are they bound together? In what way does Coulterism seek to reconfigure the dimensions of political space? Where might these dimensions be expanded? How might these appeals be turned against it? How might the constituencies be broken up and reordered?
54. The epigraph of this paper draws attention to the paradoxes involved in confronting pluralism. In it, Stephen White suggests that pluralism produces a messy politics, full of remainders. Our engagement with both the theory of pluralism and the political phenomenon that we have named ‘Coulterism’ are both evidence of this logic. We have insisted that the ‘platitude’ of problem solving will not do when it comes to pluralism. With respect to Coulterism, we have consistently avoided the easy or instinctual reactions. Our final response also proves paradoxical: one only beats Coulterism by joining it. That is to say, one should not respond by defending the universals that Coulterism attacks but by joining in that attack and by seeking to proliferate the number of forms they take. Thus, the challenge is to prevent Coulter from re-occupying the universal, and this means to do to her what she has sought to do to liberalism. Coulter wants a dirty fight; perhaps we should respect her wishes.
Astounding, isn’t it?
July 29th, 2008 at 5:03 pm
“Thus, we eschew a liberal response to ‘Coulterism’, suggesting that successful challenges to phenomena such as these can only emerge on the terrain of politics.”
I’ve read a lot of things that have stuck in my craw over time and I can’t really say why this one ticked me off enough to post for the first time but I interpret this Academese as a call for government (liberal bureaucrat appointee, not duly elected official) regulation of Free Speech. How can anyone even contemplate handing over any basic liberty or constitutional right to the same government responsible for our mountainous national debt, the poor care of our veterans or any of a thousand failures to in fact govern. If they are so enamored of the idea of the Fairness Doctrine how about expanding it to other areas of life. An end to Tenure to ensure the rotation of educators so that new ideas and dissenting opinions can find their way into classrooms. How about Term Limits for all government appointments and civil service jobs so that every once in a while these insulated and disconnected liberal drones would have to go through the uncertainty of living in the real world. Maybe then they would understand the value of true achievement and hopefully a dollar as well. When you have to work for everything you have or desire, it becomes difficult if not outright impossible to respect those who want the world sanitized and delivered to their door. Whether through welfare entitlements or court enforced crushing of ideas they find frightening because the weakness of their own beliefs cannot stand challenging. I’m not writing this in defense of Ann Coulter, from everything I read she can defend herself better than I could anyway. But they are using her as a target to attack all of our rights. Her right to be witty, humerous and insightful is the same right I have to write this or that liberals have to be loony gasbags.
Ok, now I see why I haven’t posted before, my blood pressure has gone up twenty points since I started typing. I’m going to go calm down by cleaning my guns and reading my bible.
America, Love it or LEAVE IT, please.
July 29th, 2008 at 7:20 pm
Samuel A. Chambers & Alan Finlayson?
Who?, Never heard of the snobs until now.
Maybe if they could wright a best seller like Ann has on several occasions, their names may have been familiar, yeah, right.
When ever liberals try and marginalize anyone or anything, its out of fear.
July 30th, 2008 at 6:08 am
To BillK: Your July 29th 5:58 AM post reflects the judgment that is way off. Barack Obama is an anti-military socialist, who will increase government spending and thus taxes, seek defeat in Iraq, pursue appeasement policies in foreign affairs, seek outright amnesty in immigration, promote pro-abortion policies and nominate left wing judges to the federal bench. Hillary Clinton may not be an anti-military socialist, but she is a liberal who has insulted a great general in David Petraeus, who will increase government spending and thus taxes, seek defeat in Iraq although not as fast as Obama, pursue appeasement policies in foreign affairs although not so pronounced as Obama, seek amnesty in immigration, promote pro-abortion policies and nominate left wing judges to the federal bench.
In contrast, John McCain is a pro-life fiscal conservative who served his country as a Navy combat aviator and P.O.W., who has been a fiscal hawk and will cut Government spending, who has been right all along on Iraq and will insist on victory in Iraq, who has been and will be a hawk in foreign policy, who will cut the corporate tax rate to spur business, who accepts the judgment of the majority of American people that law enforcement in immigration must come first and who pledged to the Federalist Society in January 2007 and thereafter that he will nominate strict constructionists to the U.S. Supreme Court.
If you don’t vote for John McCain, then you will have Barack Obama as your next President. That is really very stupid — stupid of you (sorry) and stupid of Coulter (not sorry).
July 30th, 2008 at 7:08 am
McCain a fiscal conservative? You’re joking, right?
Correct on the spendng, but he still doesn’t realize Bush’s tax cuts were the right thing to do?
Meanwhile:
Wow, that sounds like Obama to me.
From the AP July 29:
Shades of George H. W. Bush.
McCain on Iraq:
Hmmm, those disparate opinions on Rumsfeld come fast.
Then let’s not ignore the fact that McCain would throw open our borders as fast as Obama would, having advocated amnesty in a bill co-sponsored with Ted Kennedy of all people.
The Supreme Court? It doesn’t matter who he nominates, no constructionist will be approved by the Democratic majority likely to be present in both houses of Congress, I can guarantee you that. You thought Bork got a raw deal? Nothing compared to any candidates McCain may nominate.
McCain-Feingold was also a great idea; I hope he enjoys fighting Soros and the Unions’ 527s.
I, like Coulter, are not currently saying we won’t vote McCain; what we’re saying is that to vote for such a horrible “Republican” is going to require intoxication because it’s something we could never do if sober.
Seriously - go to GetDrunkAndVoteForMcCain.com and try and justify why voting for McCain is anything other than being a San Franciscan helping to reelect Nancy Pelosi because you don’t want Cindy Sheehan to get her seat.
August 2nd, 2008 at 10:36 am
Our Ann Coulter = Jesus’ favorite battle axe.