Baseball Crank
Covering the Front and Back Pages of the Newspaper
March 5, 2007
POLITICS: Anathema

Following up on my initial reaction here, I agree with this 100%, and this too. An excommunication of Ann Coulter from the organized conservative movement is overdue, both for tactical reasons and as a matter of basic moral hygeine.

Posted by Baseball Crank at 12:32 PM | Politics 2007 | Comments (21) | TrackBack (0)

While I personally think this is hilarious I do question the motivation for why now? She has been saying stuff far worse than calling Edwards a faggot for years. She called Al Gore one a year or so ago. Her books are chock full of insults (along with her SOP lies, exaggerations, half-truths and dull-witted humor) that, to me, go far beyond playground level name-calling. The GOP, no doubt, still loves her because she plays to an element of voters that they can't come right out and say, "Hey, you don't like gays, minorities or whatever then vote for us."

If she goes down for this a) it will be the height of hypocrisy and b) she will probably be awarded a Presidential Medal of Freedom.

Posted by: jim at March 5, 2007 1:17 PM

It's more of a Lifetime Achievement Award. The fact that this happened at CPAC - an event full of conservative activists and GOP presidential candidates - is what's triggering the response (she usually is more obviously speaking only for herself). Certainly many conservatives, myself included, have mainly kept our distance from her for several years now, and as a result we don't read her stuff much. It's a shame because she can be quite good when she is on her game, but the ratio of bad Ann to good Ann got way too high several years ago.

Posted by: The Crank at March 5, 2007 1:22 PM

Cynical or otherwise, I think the Conservative reaction to this is a good thing. Good for you guys, good for you.

Posted by: Mike at March 5, 2007 1:52 PM

Read the comments at Red State. People writing in by and large agree with her and some would suggest she did not go far enough and that Republicans and conservatives (especially) should laud her rather than loath her.

Posted by: jim at March 5, 2007 2:13 PM

I too think Ann goes a little to far sometimes, but knowing who and what she is why would you invite her to this event? She is who she is, the voice that many of us would like to have in public.

You can agree or disagree with her timing, but much of what she says to true, just not timed well and with a little more edge than most of us feel comfortable with.

Posted by: maddirishman at March 5, 2007 2:18 PM

If she had said Edwards was a f***** tomorrow instead of yesterday that would have made it OK? Or if she had called him a "gay-boy" on Wednesday? I don't get it. Isn't calling someone a name in reference to sexual preference a little 5th grade for you? I already think she is a moron (not to mention a well chronicled liar) but this just seems to hammer home the point that she is a juvenile one at the same time. It's hilarious to me that there are people out there that like this and think it's the way to go. I thought there were elements of the GOP base that were ignorant I just didn't think that they were infantile. Apparently I stand corrected.

Posted by: jim at March 5, 2007 2:27 PM

Jim, my point is that if she had made her comments at another time, they would not have been noticed. I also find it very interesting that the ringleaders of the Ann bashers are the same ones running around proclaiming that "Bush lied" and other of the left anthems. The hypocrisy get very old after a while.

Personally, I can't even get through one of Ann's books, but that doesn't make her wrong. She is often right on with her comments, she just words them poorly. A lot of that is just self promotion too.

Posted by: maddirishman at March 5, 2007 4:15 PM

Hey, it's good to see the Left take a timeout from wishing the Vice Presdient of the United States was killed by the Taliban to focus on Ann Coulter. Hahaha.

Posted by: andrew at March 5, 2007 4:41 PM

Andrew, we want Cheney impeached, not killed.

Posted by: Steve at March 5, 2007 4:57 PM

Are you calling Crank an Ann basher? Where, in any sort of public forum could she have said what she said and not have it reported on and how in the world does that make it not unbelievably juvenile? I would say she is wrong because I view the world differently than she does (she is also a known liar in her books with positions even people nearly as off the deep end as her cannot defend).

Um, Bush did lie us into this war as well as about several other things rotating around this war. That's not what this is about though. This, hopefully, will be a public debate on whether most GOPers are not only with Ann's views that clearly queers are bad and fun to use as a derogatory stereotype (I would add you also get the 9/11 widows are harpies and a myriad of other quasi-psychotic stuff) but that these views should be further expounded upon in the public domain. I think it would be wonderful to have the seedier side of the GOP base stand up and tell people that they hate gays, minorities, Arabs and that they vote Republican because of that.

Posted by: jim at March 5, 2007 4:58 PM


Fools who argue that Bush "lied us into the war" also have to accept that all their liberal heroes made similar and in some cases stronger assertions about Hussein and Iraq's WMD. It is convenient to pretend that Bush was the only one to believe Hussein was a threat pursuing WMD however facts make you seem pretty ignorant when you make that assertion. You are welcome to claim he (and Clinton, Kennedy, Biden, Pelosi, Byrd and a hundred others) has not been proven right because of the limited number of MWD found. However, you make yourself seem like a complete idiot when you claim only Bush lied about WMD.

Posted by: largebill at March 6, 2007 12:31 AM

Fools who argue that Bush "lied us into the war" also have to accept that all their liberal heroes made similar and in some cases stronger assertions about Hussein and Iraq's WMD.

LargeBill, that's boilerplate, right out of the GOP Handbook. So tiresome: "Fools." "Liberal heroes." "Similar . . . stronger assertions."

Isn't Bush the commander-in-chief? Isn't it accepted in modern America that denying military support to the executive is political suicide? Did Congress have access to the same intelligence the state dept/defense dept/the NSA/CIA have?

And . . . can a Republican make any political argument without resorting to "Well, the Dems did it too," or it's more annoying cousin, "Well, what about Bill Clinton"?

I respect many aspects of traditional, American conservatism. But modern, 21st Century Republicanism is just whining. Wah, wah, wah, let's throw a tantrum if we don't get our way.

For instance you argue that Pelosi, Kennedy, Biden, etc. share some complicity in the mess we're in. Watch how an adult -- not beholden to dogma -- handles that assertion: Ok, you're right, they do share complicity. Fine. Now what are we gonna do to fix the problem.

Compare that to the response of 21st Century GOPers, who after 6 years, still won't admit that Bush is ever wrong.

Posted by: Mike at March 6, 2007 6:54 AM

Bill Maher should be excumincated from the left wing

Posted by: Bruce at March 6, 2007 7:26 AM

"And . . . can a Republican make any political argument without resorting to "Well, the Dems did it too," or it's more annoying cousin, "Well, what about Bill Clinton"?"

Context is important. And pointing out how unserious and hypocritical Leftists are in some of their criticisms of Bush is important in any debate.

Perfect example right here.

Posted by: andrew at March 6, 2007 11:03 AM

From The American Mind piece:

One of the points of CPAC is the opportunity it gives college students to meet other young conservatives and learn from our leaders. Unlike on their campuses—where they often feel alone—at CPAC they know they are part of a vibrant political movement.

That sounds very gay, don't you think? Sort of like when Emperor Palpatine was tealling young Anikan about the dark side.

Just kidding.

I'm sure it's all very butch.

Now, the question is, am I a homophobe for making that unfunny joke?

We need to loosen up as a nation and quit playing these games of gotcha. Ann Coulter is a silly crack whore (very jittery, non-sensical at times and will do anything for money). The serious right should distance herself from her because she is an embarrassment. The left should just be dismissive.

Like me.

Posted by: Zufall at March 6, 2007 11:21 AM


Once again, you miss the point. The issue is the frequently made claim that Bush LIED to get us into the war. He and everyone else may have been wrong about the status of Iraq's WMD programs, but being wrong is NOT the same thing as lying. Reasonable discussion can take place about whether the perceived threat needed to be dealt with or if ignoring the threat and hoping it would go away was a better course of action. However, when people start the conversation by claiming the president lied it is safe to assume the person is not up to a reasonable conversation but rather suffering from BDS.

Posted by: largebill at March 6, 2007 1:02 PM

Bill, I missed no point whatsoever. I merely noted that "Well, the Dems did such-and-such," isn't a legitimate response to the question of whether Bush knowingly or negligently got the WMD question wrong.

What Pelosi or Kennedy (or Bill Clinton) did/said/thought is not germane to Bush's intent.

Posted by: Mike at March 6, 2007 1:08 PM

1. This topic is a serious threadjack.

2. It absolutely is relevant, if you are evaluating whether the Bush Administration was knowing or reckless in getting the pre-war WMD intelligence wrong, to look at what other people with different perspectives said before the war. It matters in two ways:

(A) In determining whether it was reasonable to conclude that Saddam had WMD, it makes sense to ask what other people with access to similar or the same sources of information concluded. The Clinton Administration, leading Congressional Democrats, and foreign intelligence services all looked at the same data and drew the same basic conclusions.

(B) It's also relevant that the Bush team knew that all these others had reached this conclusion. You are more likely to have a comfort level with a conclusion knowing that others, even those whose interests and perspectives are radically different, all agree.

Is this debate as important as what we do now? Of course not. But it's the left that has been obsessed with re-fighting the battle over the decision to go to war, and has labored long and hard to rob the mission of its legitimacy by rewriting the past. Resisting that effort still matters.

Posted by: The Crank at March 6, 2007 2:07 PM

State of the Union address with blatantly false information known to be false at the time, Colin Powell's nearly 100% fabricated address to the UN, Rummy's assertion that we knew exactly where the WMDs were, the repeated tying of Saddam to Al Qaeda and/or 9/11, Cheney and his repeated assertions of a viable nuclear program, the repeated assertions that "no one could have forseen Al Qaeda using planes to attack inside the US".

All false. All known to be false. Shall I continue. I easily could.

Posted by: jim at March 6, 2007 2:09 PM

Crank - Sorry to have played a role in the threadjacking.

That said, here it is, as if on cue: The Clinton Administration . . . looked at the same data and drew the same basic conclusions.

Poor Bill. I bet he didn't even know he was surrogate C-in-C over a year after he left office.

Posted by: Mike at March 6, 2007 3:00 PM

Ann Coulter is Dick Cheney's bastard daughter. Cheney tells Coulter what to say. Coulter conveniently is providing a smoke screen while Scooter Libby exits stage right.

I am against the Neocons, not the troops. The Neocons were the ones that lied. The buck stops on Bush Lite's desk. Bush is more guilty than anybody else. Just before the market correction I purchased 200 more shares of Northrup Grumman. NOC shares are better than US War Bonds! Just call me a hippie hypocrit! USAF 1970-74

Posted by: yetijuice at March 6, 2007 6:24 PM
Site Meter 250wde_2004WeblogAwards_BestSports.jpg