More of Coulter’s wit and wisdom

I will say right off that I have no intention of getting a copy of Ann Coulter’s book, Godless.

By now, I have all the Coulter I need.

Here is, for instance, Coulter on Hannity & Colmes peddling anti-Darwinist idiocy as she discusses the philosophy of liberalism:

Well, it is an entire cosmology view of the world, beliefs in the supernatural. I do think, something I don’t get to until the end of the book, that at the root of the lot of it is — is their obsession with Darwinism and the Darwinian view of the world, which replaces sanctification of life with sanctification of sex and death. Sex and death. That’s how you get the improvement in the species. And allegedly, the new species, which they’ve never been able to produce.

Of course, one might argue just as plausibly that Christianity, of which Coulter proclaims herself an ardent adherent (she’s certainly got the “Love thy neighbor” part down pat), sanctifies death. I’m saying this not in order to take a swipe at Christianity but to point out how absurd Coulter’s swipe at Darwinism is.

And then, the invaluable Patterico offers some excerpts from the first chapter of Godless, available online.

For instance:

I don’t particularly care if liberals believe in God. In fact, I would be crestfallen to discover any liberals in heaven.

This is probably the kind of line that Coulter apologists find exquisitely funny and mordant. Move over, Dorothy Parker. Maybe they should ask themselves if they still found it funny it that was, say, Molly Ivins or Jeaneane Garofalo on conservatives.

And then there’s this:

Liberals use the word science exactly as they use the word constitutional.

Both words are nothing more or less than a general statement of liberal approval, having nothing to do with either science or the Constitution. (Thus, for example, the following sentence makes sense to liberals: President Clinton saved the Constitution by repeatedly ejaculating on a fat Jewish girl in the Oval Office.)

Patterico is aghast at La Coulter’s use of the word “Jewish,” which he says has vaguely anti-Semitic overtones. But even leaving that aside, Coulter’s caricature of liberal views is so hyperbolic that it’s not even particularly funny, because it has so little connection to reality. Again, let’s try a role reversal:

Conservatives use the word science exactly as they use the word constitutional.

Both words are nothing more or less than a general statement of conservative approval, having nothing to do with either science or the Constitution. (Thus, for example, the following sentence makes sense to conservatives: Clarence Thomas saved the Constitution by repeatedly talking dirty to a black chick at work.)

Hilarious and full of insight, no?

18 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

18 responses to “More of Coulter’s wit and wisdom

  1. Revenant

    Disclaimer: I don’t find that (or anything Coulter’s ever written) to be funny or clever. But I do understand how her humor works.

    Coulter has rephased “Clinton was a sexually liberated man who fought back against a puritanical Republican attempt to unconstitutionally remove him from power” — which many liberals DO believe, and which Coulter’s target audience thinks ALL liberals believe — as (in politer terms) “Clinton saved the Constitution by having cheating on his wife”. This mocks two ostensible liberal beliefs (“infidelity is fine and normal” and “Clinton protected the Constitution”) by deliberately confusing them with each other.

    And that’s more analysis than Coulter deserves, so I’ll end there.

  2. Anonymous

    In reality Ann Coulter is necessary to balance the scale. Can’t have all the extremist on one side.

  3. peter hoh

    I saw Coulter on Leno a few nights ago. Her body language was odd, but I can’t figure out what seemed off.

    I remember her from the old Bill Maher show as having a relaxed air about her as she tossed off her caustic remarks. On Leno, she seemed rather uncomfortable.

  4. Revenant

    That might be because Maher and Coulter are personal friends.

    Which should tell you all you need to know about how much of either person’s political schtick is real and how much is a ploy for ratings and book sales.

  5. Anonymous

    In his book “Blinded by the Right,” David Brock said that Ann Coulter’s private conversations often included slurs against Jews and that on at least one occasion she said out loud that she wanted to exit a room because there were too many Jews in it.

    Mind you, this is David Brock talking.

    But mind you again, this is Ann Coulter he’s talking about.

    I don’t give her the benefit of the doubt. Nothing is too twisted and cruel for her.

  6. Cal Lanier

    I can’t stand Coulter. Her point about the moral authority given to victims was true enough, but as you (and others) have observed, it’s an authority that conservatives are equally desperate to grant.

    In fact, conservatives are only annoyed when their own chosen victims aren’t given equal time by the media–which points to the real issue. The media creates the monster, and the media creates it because the public eats it up.

  7. The Arbor Group

    If I were Ann Coulter, I wouldn’t even feel my day had started right if some KOOK hadn’t called me a racist, sexist, anti-Semitic homophobe.

    Sheesh…you guys are SOOOO predictable.

    Ps I love that line from her about how liberals use the word ‘science’ as if it’s their own provincial domain and anyone who dares believe the Bible has no business entering into their sacred and hallowed arena.

  8. Anonymous

    Sorry, couldn’t resist. 🙂 This is from the Overheard in New York site:

    Woman: Who do you think would win a fight between Ann Coulter and Maureen Dowd?

    Man: A fight?

    Woman: Yeah, you know, a death match.

    Man: I’m gonna go with Ann Coulter.

    Woman: You think? They both wear long, spikey heels. They could put each other’s eyes out pretty fast.

    Man: But Ann Coulter would be like, “Rock on, I’m in a death cage!” And Maureen Dowd would be like, “Wait, what am I doing in a death cage?”

  9. Rob

    Revenant wrote:

    Coulter has rephased “Clinton was a sexually liberated man who fought back against a puritanical Republican attempt to unconstitutionally remove him from power” — which many liberals DO believe…

    I don’t know any liberals who think anything like that. Most that I’ve read/talked to think he is a deeply flawed individual who couldn’t keep his pants zipped. Can you point to any well-known or widely-read liberals who have expressed what you wrote?

  10. Revenant

    I don’t know any liberals who think anything like that.

    Well, I do.

    Can you point to any well-known or widely-read liberals who have expressed what you wrote?

    Bill Maher.

  11. Wallace

    “Sheesh…you guys are SOOOO predictable.”

    I keep hearing similar things from defenders of Annie-get-yur-gun – that “you people really prove her points” or “she really has you people pegged” without ever addressing any of the criticisms about her. If her fans would pay attention and wipe the smugness out of their sense organs for a minute or two they might realize that Ann is the biggest embarrassment that conservatively minded people have had to deal with since Pat Robertson.

    I especially like the term she uses “Darwiniacs”. I am going to get a T-shirt made saying “Conservative Darwiniac”

  12. Rob

    Maher’s not a liberal. He’s a self-styled libertarian. Even so, does he actually approve of Clinton’s philandering? The most Clinton-friendly “liberal” attitude I have seen is that his sex life was nobody’s business.

  13. Cathy Young

    I have to agree with Rob on this one. I really can’t recall any mainstream liberals hailing Clinton as a sexually liberated man. Some did oppose the intrusion into his personal, ahem, affairs under the cover of sexual harassment law; but then again, so did I.

  14. Revenant

    Maher’s not a liberal. He’s a self-styled libertarian

    And the Fox News Network is self-styled as fair and balanced.

    The notion that Maher’s a libertarian doesn’t pass the laugh test. His politics are virtually indistinguishable from those of Bill Clinton, aside from a few areas (such as environmentalism and animal rights) on which Maher is considerably closer to the lefty fringe. The label “libertine socialist” fits him better.

    Maher is one of those tiresome liberals who thinks that thinking “hey, the government shouldn’t tell me what to do” makes a person a libertarian. But *everybody* thinks the government shouldn’t tell them what to do. What makes a person a libertarian is thinking the government shouldn’t tell *other* people what to do, and Maher totally fails to meet that criterion.

    Even so, does he actually approve of Clinton’s philandering?

    Even before impeachment became an issue, he defended Clinton by saying that all men cheat and Republicans who condemn it only do so because nobody wants to have sex with them. You may choose to quibble that that doesn’t constitute approval of Clinton’s behavior, but I simply don’t buy it. When a person has nothing bad to say about an action and nothing but contempt for peoople who criticize that action, that person is approving of that action.

  15. Cathy Young

    Maher may not be a true libertarian, Rev (I’ll certainly grant you that!) but he is no mainstream liberal, either (if only because of his quite unapologetic sexism).

  16. Revenant

    but he is no mainstream liberal, either (if only because of his quite unapologetic sexism).

    Bill Clinton was pro-death-penalty and pro-welfare reform, but I’d still call him a mainstream liberal (and certainly he was overwhelmingly popular among mainstream liberals in his day). Most mainstream members of any political classification have SOME beliefs that differ from the rest of the herd. They’re not Borg, after all. 🙂

    This is a bit off the subject, though. I didn’t say that the attitude Coulter mocks was the mainstream liberal one, only that it was held by many liberals and Coulter had recast it as a universal liberal belief. Sort of like how the belief that Clinton had Vince Foster killed was (is?) held my many conservatives, but could not honestly be said to be a mainstream conservative belief.

  17. Cathy Young

    The point is that Maher’s views on adultery are highly idiosyncratic (to put it charitably *G*).

    To attribute them to “liberals” is a bit like saying that “conservatives” believe women over 18 are over the hill as far sexual attractiveness goes, because that’s what John Derbyshire says.

  18. Revenant

    The point is that Maher’s views on adultery are highly idiosyncratic (to put it charitably *G*).

    Maher is idiosyncratic in that he publically admits, in the presence of women, to thinking that way. But his views aren’t as unusual as you might think, particularly among young, rich, and/or famous liberal men. It is hardly unusual to find a guy who, lacking conservative views on sexual morality and finding himself easily able to attract women, starts treating them in the Clintonian manner (i.e., as disposable sperm recepticles).

    But in any case, I’m not attempting to generalize from Maher to liberals in general. I said many liberals thought something, and when challenged to name one who did, named Maher (mainly because he’d come up in the Coulter discussions). It is indeed rare to see liberal public figures admit to thinking Clinton did nothing wrong, just as it is rare to see liberal public figures say “there’s nothing wrong with using abortion for birth control” or “I think porn is great” even though many liberals (and non-liberals like me) believe those things. Much of the rest of society is hostile to those views, and it isn’t worth the aggrivation for public figures to make waves over trivialities like that. So we get euphemistic crap like “women have a right to choose”, “I don’t like what Larry Flynt does but I defend his right to say it”, and “Clinton’s sex life is private”. But I spent a lot of time arguing with people during the public debates over impeachment, and I know I encountered the “what’s wrong with what Clinton did?” attitude a lot. Certainly not a majority of the time, or all the time (as Coulter would have you think), but often enough to be notable.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s