More Clear Thinking From Ann Coulter

As I read Adler and came to "high minded liberals", I wondered if he might be speaking of Alterman. Actually, Alterman is the only liberal I've read who argued for ignoring Coulter and that's not an irrational stance (the "any publicity is good publicity" cliche has some truth to it).

(GW isnt eligible for Hall of Fame status yet)

blatham wrote:

As I read Adler and came to "high minded liberals", I wondered if he might be speaking of Alterman. Actually, Alterman is the only liberal I've read who argued for ignoring Coulter and that's not an irrational stance (the "any publicity is good publicity" cliche has some truth to it).

If you click the link you can see the full text of the article (at least, I hope so, it might be sub req), and in the part I snipped & replaced by "[..]" he lists three examples of the people he was talking about: Eric Alterman, Kirsten Powers ("one of Fox News' token liberal commentators"), Ana Marie Cox ("writing on Time's Swampland").

Nimh, you are usually well read. What do you suppose her point was when she said

"I was going to have a few comments on the other Democratic presidential candidate, John Edwards, but it turns out you have to go into rehab if you use the word 'faggot,'"

Do you think it was to simply call him a faggot, or to make a point about libs going to rehab for using naughty words or other actions? That seems to be the latest fad. Claim an addiction or problem and enter rehab as though that will fix everything after screwing up.

I am sure that if Coulter wanted to simply call Edwards a faggot, she would have.

Mysteryman, are you kidding?

Coulter is a gift from God for the Democrats and the left! There is no way I am going to ignore her. The more she is on the front pages, the better.

She is a poster child for bigotry, and the image of conservative youth applauding is priceless.

This is politics Mysteryman. When someone who is associated by the public with the other side is such a wonderful person-- they need to be publically congratulated.

Ignoring Coulter would be a waste.

I wager she has never been on a date in her life.

BTW, has anyone heard any new developments regarding her tax and election-fraud problems? I thought that she would be in jail by now.

Fox's Ann Coulter 2.0
Conserva-babe and star-in-the-making Rachel Marsden has an, um, colorful past. What was Fox thinking?

By Rebecca Traister

March 29, 2007 | "Maybe [Pakistani cricket fans] should focus less on cricket and a little more on hygiene," opined Rachel Marsden on a recent episode of Fox News' middle-of-the-night talk oddity "Red Eye." Marsden was adding her two cents to a discussion of murdered Pakistani cricket coach Bob Woolmer, and seemed unaware that she had said anything offensive. But her co-hosts, Greg Gutfeld and Bill Schulz, looked appropriately aghast; Gutfeld was quick to assure viewers that "Red Eye," the Fox-for-frat-boys show he's been hosting with gross-out gusto since Feb. 6, did not endorse Marsden's views on Pakistani hygiene...

But, argued Gutfeld, "Don't you think that being accused of rape is as bad as being raped? Those guys' lives were ruined!"

If we took away women's right to vote, we'd never have to worry about another Democrat president. It's kind of a pipe dream, it's a personal fantasy of mine, but I don't think it's going to happen. And it is a good way of making the point that women are voting so stupidly, at least single women.

It also makes the point, it is kind of embarrassing, the Democratic Party ought to be hanging its head in shame, that it has so much difficulty getting men to vote for it. I mean, you do see it's the party of women and 'We'll pay for health care and tuition and day care -- and here, what else can we give you, soccer moms?'

[..] Garance's earlier post on this topic is titled "Coulter Comes Out Against Women Voting". In fact, this is not the first time she has advocated the abolition of her own rights. Here are a few earlier examples:

On TownHall she writes:

Webb began his rebuttal by complaining that we don't have national health care and aren't spending enough on "education" (teachers unions). In other words, he talked about national issues that only are national issues because of this country's rash experiment with women's suffrage.

In an interview with the U.K. Guardian:

Why does she think the franchise is too big already? Who exactly has the vote who shouldn't have? "Women," she says, laughing. "It's true. It would be a much better country if women did not vote. That is simply a fact. In fact, in every presidential election since 1950 - except Goldwater in '64 - the Republican would have won, if only the men had voted."

And on Politically Incorrect:

"I think [women] should be armed but should not [be allowed to] vote. No, they all have to give up their vote, not just, you know, the lady clapping and me. The problem with women voting -- and your Communists will back me up on this -- is that, you know, women have no capacity to understand how money is earned. They have a lot of ideas on how to spend it. And when they take these polls, it's always more money on education, more money on child care, more money on day care."

While I agree with Ezra on the desire for some Democratic commentator to express just a little outrage over all this woman-hating, I doubt that the outrage will come now. After all, Coulter has been telling this little story for almost a decade with nary a peep of protest from the Democratic politicians.