Ann Coulter Isn't Completely Wrong

Stop the presses! (Or, um, stop the data transfer?)

Ann Coulter said something sensible.

No, not the part about Bush nominating Barney the Scottish terrier to the Supreme Court ... and no, it's not the bit where she says it is a "good rule of thumb" to hate people from elite universities. It's just past that. It's right around the cheap shot at John Kerry.

Sane comment #1: "Bush has no right to say 'Trust me.' He was elected to represent the American people, not to be dictator for eight years."

Sane comment #2: "Being a Supreme Court justice ought to be a mind-numbingly tedious job suitable only for super-nerds trained in legal reasoning like John Roberts. Being on the Supreme Court isn't like winning a 'Best Employee of the Month' award. It's a real job. "

That said, she does refer to liberals -- specifically those at Ivy League universities -- as "the devil," so we can all rest assured that Coulter has not completely returned to the World of the Reasonable.

(Also helping us reach that conclusion is her little Ann Coulter Photo Gallery -- and by "little," I mean 30 pictures of Ann, Ann, and more Ann. Actually, it's 36 if you could the montages as separate photos. If there's one thing Coulter lovers and haters alike can agree on, it's that Coulter is her own biggest fan. This photo, by the way, is my favorite. Check out those hunting shoes!)

Near the end of her column is this inexplicable sentence: "To paraphrase Archie Bunker, when you find a conservative from an elite law school, you've really got something." I admit, it's been a long time since I've seen All in the Family. But I remember it well enough to have serious doubts that Archie Bunker ever bellowed anything about conservatives from elite law schools. If he did say such a thing and you can prove it to me, I'll take you out for a sandwich.

If you live somewhere other than Washington, though, you pay your way here. I'm just buying the sandwich.

By Emily Messner |  October 7, 2005; 2:30 PM ET  | Category:  Misc.
Previous: Harriet Miers: The Recusal Question | Next: Religious Test for Harriet Miers

Comments

Please email us to report offensive comments.



OK, I don't want this to deteriorate into a We-Hate-Ann-Coulter discussion...

...oh, wait, yes I do!

Anyway, check out the second photo in Ann Coulter's photo gallery. She has actually cropped out the person she was standing next to. Well, cropped out all of him except for his left arm. Was it an ex-boyfriend? Was it someone horribly disfigured? Or was it, even worse, an ivy-league law school LIBERAL? We shall never know.

Shame on you, Emily, for subjecting me to these horrific images. I mean, come on, Ann Coulter in a short-skirted black leather outfit? Now I have this horrible image of Ann Coulter somewhere between a french maid and a dominatrix. Next time, when linking to Ann Coulter's website, please place a warning. "Clicking on this link may seriously damage your health and sanity."

So what if Ann Coulter loves herself? Someone's got to.

Posted by: Derek | October 7, 2005 02:40 PM

Dang, Emily a bus ticket and a sandwich would do! ;)

Annie "I-carry-no-six-iron" Coulter probably couldn't shoot a barn at 3 feet. How she escaped the stage in Arizona from a pie throw (in high heels with the grace of lady finding the tampon is about to come out), shows this anorexic she-man is all mouth. She wasn't even packing in a very gun loving state (heck, there's even pistols slim enough to put down a miniskirt)!

That said, even Coulter knows what's qualified to be on the SCOTUS -- and it isn't Miers. Even Coulter wouldn't balk if a woman of more caliber was nominated, either. In this day and age gender isn't much of an issue outside the Religious Right wing (and Coulter is the Ayn Rand type, not the bible thumper -- she drinks and smokes and cusses like no Sunday worshipper).

We need the best qualified for SCOTUS, male or female. Not political appointments of friends with little Constitutional scholarship, let alone real Law experience in the courtroom (which a DA or AG would have in spades) who'd have more than a primer on issues like DNA, forensics and all. Just graduating from Law school and being a member of a firm isn't enough, when a judge in this new era will have to rule on some heady issues -- involving DNA, forensics and all -- which some Sunday school coffee server just isn't abreast in. Handling corporate law as a counsel to the governor/president isn't heading the Innocence Project. We know Roberts would be able to digest the medical/legal issues, but no one knows if Mier knows an anterior from a posterior. ;)

SandyK

Posted by: SandyK | October 8, 2005 01:18 AM

The day I acknowledge agreeing with Ms. Coulter...well, it isn't today:

1) He has the 'right' to say "Trust Me"...and I have the right to say "Hell NO!" (...and "Resign, you dimwit.") (Don't you think even a low low-average kind of intelligence would have had second thoughts about appointing an unqualified individual to an important government position after watching the performance of prior appointee Michael Brown? What's the death toll?) If her point is taht she doesn't want a dictator, then why did she campaign for George "It would be a lot easier if I were a dictator" Bush?

2)Although I'll grant that Super-Nerds are more likely to be qualified for the Supreme Court, I'd kind of like people who have spent at least a vacation visiting the real world.

And am I missing something? If it is "a good rule of thumb" to hate people from elite universities, does this mean Ann Coulter hates George W. Bush? (Yale, 68), Dick Cheney? Yale, 59), Bill Frist? (Princeton, 74), ad nauseum?

Giving Ms. Coulter the attention it requires to decipher her most recent babbling unfortunately prolongs our misery by feeding her illness.

Even hard-core right-wing hacks (is that redundant?) must be embarrased by Ms. Coulter.

"Being nice to people is, in fact, one of the incidental tenets of Christianity, as opposed to other religions whose tenets are more along the lines of 'kill everyone who doesn't smell bad and doesn't answer to the name Mohammed'" Ann Coulter, March 3, 2004 (quoted from www.anncoulter.org/columns/2004/030304e.htmas cached by Google.)

Emily, I admire your guts for choosing to work in Washington, but even from Denver the smell is sometimes a bit too much -- I don't think I could keep lunch down. So I won't address the Archie Bunker question...

Bob

Posted by: Bob (In Denver) | October 8, 2005 02:30 AM

Bob,

You're missing something in the partisanship: when the conservative pundits OPENLY disagree with Bush -- top, down -- it's time to look up from the latest moveon.org action alert email, and see that the "game is afoot".

Only the Bush faithful is cheering Mier, the rest of the ranks (the majority) smell a dead rat.

For those who don't know conservative history (which seems a lot of you don't): for 30 years they have groomed, organized, and financed for this day -- to overturn the Warren era court. Bush got too full of himself and tried to play king, and his rank and file aren't "subjects". This is why the conservatives are really upset with the Mier appointment (outside the Religious Right set gender isn't fueling the disgust, it's that she has ZERO Constitutional scholarship). I'll put it this way, all those home schooling conservatives are teaching their kids more than the Three R's, they're teaching them daily about things like the 14th amendment and it's reach. If they're doing that with their kids in a militia camp in Arizona, or a surburban home outside Atlanta, you know they're reeling that some two-bit corporate lawyer is being nominated who's expertise on the Consitution maybe less than their home schooled kids.

When they say they want someone with more Constitutional knowledge, they want one that is more versed their kids. Roberts is a good example, and they don't want anything less.

For you Democrats, stay out of this turf war and let the conservatives settle it. For you may get a reward if Bush repeats the Katrina fiasco again (the conservatives will revolt -- since 10/20/30 years is a l-o-n-g time to wait to reverse Warren, and the GOP will splinter and you can how your power back before they reorganize). If Bush bites his inner lip and puts his boots down, he's going to face what his daddy did, and this time in spades from his own kind. Which you Dems would relish more, than nipping at the GOP's heels with sexism cat-calls and other canned statements.

And don't make the mistake of thinking Miers is weak and a shoe-in for you, either. As it will show the general public all you care about is partisanship, and their college tuition bills are for nothing.

SandyK

Posted by: SandyK | October 8, 2005 03:48 AM

Since the Opinions are in at 3am...

Colummist Colbert I. King made an interesting observation, but as much as it's wishful thinking -- he forgot something. The game plan is to stuff the court (which will remain as is for 10/20/30+ years), and reserve the money and time to keep the legislature in the GOP's hands. They already know they can check SCOTUS (they screamed enough about it of late) through the legislature branch. It's a safeguard (and they have no plans to let the Democrats gain any foothold).

Thinking Miers is a good way to supplant the more radical right, can backfire in a way not even Colbert wishes to envision. It can be 1992 all over again, and this time they'd be more angry of losing a 30 year prize.

I have my own reasons why I want an intellectual on SCOTUS, but at the same time also happy if Miers (with her dual religious background) gets confirmed. Because it'll be the end of this Neo-Con movement either way. I'm just waiting for the Pope to get cocky, and upset the whole applecart (patience is a virtue, indeed). :-)

SandyK

Posted by: SandyK | October 8, 2005 04:30 AM

Eh, people are so worked up about Miers lack of qualifications. As long as she hires good clerks (you know, the ones that do most of the work), she'll fit right in with the rest of the court.

Great link to Coulter though - the vitriol in her writing is almost as fun as the vodka in my Cheerios.

Posted by: benny | October 8, 2005 11:40 AM

Speaking of clerks (I know this just HAS to be satire, but....)

http://www.powells.com/features/bibliolatry/10.html

===========================================
In 1971, Richard Nixon finally gave William Rehnquist his big break. Despite his relative lack of qualifications, he nominated him for a position on the Supreme Court. But as predicted, one of those memos Rehno had written in support of Plessy v. Ferguson did come back to haunt him. Drat! Realizing that those he's-not-heavy-he's-my-brother longhairs were going to skewer him, he quickly fell into a blind panic. William Rehnquist has never been known for the strength of his intellect, and he simply didn't know what to do. But he was smart enough to know who would. Though Truman Capote was one of the most brilliant writers of his generation, he was an even better liar.

At first Truman protested. "You know, sugar, I'd do anything for you. But in a matter so important to the American people, I just can't interfere." But Rehno wouldn't take no for an answer. He made all manner of promises: mink coats, diamonds, yachts...he even offered to take out a hit on Gore Vidal. Tempting, yes. But no dice. So, plan B: He threw Truman up against a wall; he threatened to break both his legs; he called him all manner of filthy names. This just elicited a few naughty giggles.

But then the answer struck him: "Truman. If you help me get confirmed to the Supreme Court, I'll let you wear my robes." Bingo.

The answer, of course, was simple: "You're a lawyer, for Christsakes. Figure it out. Just tell 'em that someone else wrote the memo, and make sure it's someone that can't deny it; i.e. choose someone dead. You used to clerk for that other Supreme Court justice, right? Say he wrote it. No one will believe a word of it, but they won't be able to prove it either. You'll be confirmed in no time."

Soon enough, Truman was swimming in black robes. And let's just say, he did far more than just wear them.
===========================================

=:x

SandyK

Posted by: SandyK | October 8, 2005 02:35 PM

Since we have to wait until Emily comes back on monday (sob!), some commentary on this column...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/07/AR2005100701700.html

Anyone who went to Freepers or Sean Hannity's forum even 2 years ago will attest that the conservative spectrum is quite diverse. There's the Neo-Cons, the Religious Right, the Traditional and Paleo conservatives and their moderates. During the 2004 election some of tbe more Paleo sided conservatives actually jumped from the GOP to the Constitution Party or even the Libertarian Party, instead (with Neo-Cons in the GOP there's little room for classical or paleo conservatives -- even Pat Buchanan left the GOP years ago).

This splinter isn't a splinter per se, as much as the wings are very diverse. They can't all agree, and sometimes at each other's throats. If I mentioned the ERA (which the old GOP first put on the campaign plank in ***1940****), or about our country needing to conserve our fuel and natural resources, a Neo-Con of the corporate type would come in and call me a LIBERAL (and being a clueless twit wouldn't know a liberal from a jackass if put side by side).

The Left has it's factions, but the "fun" is on the conservative side watching the Neo-Cons make fools of themselves. First, they proclaim they're conservative because they just love Reagan (who wasn't a Traditional conservative -- the last one was Eisenhower. I would say Nixon, but he touched the gold pricing, and became yet another paper chasing new money prez). Second, they became the 21st century Democrats on social issues (this to even reverse Esienhower's gains <-- which says a lot about their idealogy in itself), this time to reverse the 60's gains. Third, they love porn and expanding government AND the military's reach even among the citizens (well, these Neo-Con leaders were ex-Socialists). Finally, they spend like Kennedy goes through the liquor locker (and the last checkbook they balanced was a decade ago).

So the split has been there for years, but this time even what held the conservatives together then has come unglued. Asking the conservatives, who has spent 30 years to reach this day, to just accept another FEMA Brown is the straw that broke the camel's back. The rank and file has had enough -- and they can finally see what the Traditionals and Paleo's been telling these clueless Bush bots: Bush is NO conservative.

Now you Neo-Cons/Neo-Dixicrats/Neo-Crackers/looney bible thumpers just get out of the GOP and form your own cesspool party. The rest of the mainstream and moderate types would like their party back, and end this crazy partisanship divide.

SandyK

Posted by: SandyK | October 9, 2005 09:12 AM

I don't think Mr. Bunker-O'Conner would have said that in jest. It really is difficult to have a decent legal (or any other) education and be a conservative.

Posted by: Roger Wood | October 9, 2005 09:49 AM

Dear Don Hewitt (NO NO not that "Don Hewitt," I mean Don Hugh Hewitt, the
respected head of "the Family" of conservative bloggers): Please take no
offense by this. But the word is out, never take sides against the Family. . .

(http://hughhewitt.com/archives/2005/10/02-week/index.php#a000323 Hewitt
questions your loyalty to the Family. You should all be very careful. . .)

HUGH HEWITT

You have to answer for Meirs, Frum.


DAVID FRUM

Hugh, you got it all wrong...


HUGH HEWITT

You fingered Miers for the Kristol people. Ahhh that little farce you played
over with my sister K-Lo-

- you think that could fool a Hewitt?

DAVID FRUM

Hugh, I'm innocent -- I swear on the kids, Hugh -- Please, Hugh, don't do
this to me.

HUGH HEWITT (as he pulls up his own chair)

Sit down.


DAVID FRUM (sitting)

Hugh, don't do this to me, please...


HUGH HEWITT

Kristol's dead. So is Professor Bainbridge -- Scott Johnson -- Glenn
Reynolds -- Andrew Sullivan -- Today I settle all Family business, so don't
tell me you're innocent, Frum. Admit what you did.

(then, to John Podhoretz)

Get him a drink.

(then, to Frum, as Hewitt shifts in his chair)

Come on. Don't be afraid, David -- Come on, you think I am going to take you
away from my sister? I'm
the Blogfather to Goldberg and Podhoretz --

(then, after Podhoretz hands Frum a glass of wine)

Go ahead, drink it -- drink

(then, after Frum drinks)

No -- David -- you're out of the Family business, that's your punishment.
You're finished. I'm

putting you on a plane to Vegas --

then, to Jonah Goldberg, as he reaches out his hand)

Jonah?

(then, after Jonah hands Hewitt a plane ticket, which he hands to Frum)

I want you to stay there. Understand?

(then, quietly, after Frum nods and hmmms)

Only don't tell me you're innocent. Because it insults my intelligence --
and makes me very

angry...

(then)

Now who approached you? Will or Kristol?


DAVID FRUM (after hesitating)

It was Kristol.


HUGH HEWITT

Good.

(then, after standing)

There's a car waiting for you outside to take you to the airport. I'll call
K-Lo to tell her

what flight you're on.

DAVID FRUM (as he rises, starts to protest)

Hugh, please...

HUGH HEWITT

Come on -- get outta my sight.

[Frum turns. Podhoretz helps him put on his coat]

CUT TO: Hewitt gate. Medved is putting luggage into the rear of the car.
Frum gets

into the front seat. -day

CUT TO: Interior of car. Rush is seen behind Frum, in the back seat. -day

RUSH

Hello, David...

CUT TO: The House. Hewitt, Podhoretz, and Goldberg emerge as Goldberg locks
the door. -day

CUT TO: Interior of car. Rush garrotes Frum, who gets pulled back and kicks
his feet

at the windshield, which breaks as the car takes off. Hewitt, Podhoretz and
Goldberg watch. After

the car pulls away, we hear the Title Theme music as they walk through the
mall. -day

Posted by: The Family | October 9, 2005 10:10 AM

so what if Miers doesn't know constitutional law. ginsberg and kennedy don't even refer to the document any more. they're too busy fawning over european law and thought. as if that dying society has anything to teach us, except surrendering. maybe when she is on the court she can show others where the constitution is kept.
she isn't the best choice, but how smart do you have to be to determine if the law violates the constitution?
we aren't talking about someone we are depending on for a cure for cancer.
all you need is the ability to read and common sense. the fact that they actually found a lawyer with both of these qualities is amazing.

Posted by: moses | October 9, 2005 10:27 AM

LMAO!

Posted by: Enigma from Blogtemps.com | October 9, 2005 02:32 PM

Ann Coulter's opposition to the Miers nomination is by itself enough to make me wholeheartedly support it. The angst of the other hot and bothered wingnuts is just icing on the cake. If Ms. Coulter said the Earth was round, I'd start to worry about sailing over the edge.

Posted by: Phil in Chicago | October 9, 2005 10:11 PM

Her comment about Archie (speaking as a fan of that show) was about how he likes to say "now ya gotcha-self something there..." or now you're talkin'...

He says it all the time... normally when he's talking to Kelsey (barkeep) about some little-known (made-up) Archie factoid or observation... pretty funny stuff...

I think that's what she meant... not that Arch would ever talk about law school or Harvard, but the expression- "now ya gotcha-self something there buddy boy..." yeah, he says that plenty.

Then again with Ann... you just never know.

By the way, your comment on the hunting shoes was absolutely hysterical!!!!


As for the rest of it...

Posted by: archie.....and other stuff | October 10, 2005 01:06 PM

The Archie Bunker comment comes from an episode in which Archie is supporting a political ticket. The candidates names are something like Nelson, Giamatti, Feldman and O'Riley. Archie says it is a perfectly balanced ticket. Feldman for Treasurer. "Perfect, those people know how to handle money." Giamatti for District Attorney. "To keep an eye on Feldman. And when you find an honest Italian, you really got something there."

O'Riley, "the mick," was there "to make sure the graft is spread around evenly." Nelson, the "regular American," would make the rest of them look good.

Posted by: Tim in Grand Rapids, MI | October 10, 2005 02:19 PM

Good job, Tim! I was just about to post the same message.

Posted by: Brad | October 12, 2005 03:57 PM

"Ann Coulter Isn't Completely Wrong". Stop the presses!!

In other breaking news, "Even A Stopped Clock Is Right Twice A Day" - though I'd say the clock is right about twice as often as Coulter.

Is this really, in your view, the "Week's Big Issue", beating out other contenders such as climatologists predicting the hottest year ever, Karl Rove facing possible indictment, Bill Frist playing a crucial role in health care policy in the US while personally profiting from those decisions, Tom delay under indictment in Texas and so on?

As my eye wanders down to the bottom of the page, I have to wonder if there was a "Bill Frist Talking Doll" some advertiser wanted to flog on the WP, if you'd have chosen a different topic...

Posted by: Paul | October 13, 2005 05:31 AM

Just imagine if Miers was president and
recommended Bush for the Supremes!!!!

Posted by: Gaye | October 13, 2005 01:19 PM

Look. It is an etched-in-granite testament to the debauchment of America's media culture that someone like Ann Coulter is now considered a serious political analyst. Coulter still regards Joe McCarthy as a hero, considers anyone to the left of David Duke as disloyal and treasonous, has as her most commendable credit a withering tendency to criminalize opposition to conservative political values, and is far and away the most vicious, bile-laden critic of liberal politicians and personalities I have ever had the misfortune to listen to.

Coulter, notwithstanding an admirable education, demonstrates a level of ignorance and bigotry so laced with animus, so dripping with acid, one is prompted to wonder what some left leaning university professor must have done to her in the past to warrant such an abiding, unreasoning hatred of all things liberal.

Why anyone left or right anywhere in any professional venue deems her to have anything of any value to offer mystifies me to no end. She should be out there with all of those witless fringe nuts like the Birchers yet the media continue to fawn over her and treat her as though she were actually some serious analyst rather than a certifiable nut case.

Posted by: jaxas | October 14, 2005 11:31 AM

Post a Comment

We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge washingtonpost.com's articles, blogs, reviews and multimedia features.

User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions.