Sign up for our newsletters   

Baltimore City Paper home.
Print Email

Political Animal

Hate Sells

By Brian Morton | Posted 6/14/2006

Here’s a joke for you: Ann Coulter is a whore.

A real thigh-slapper, isn’t it? Wow—I can’t stop laughing, I’m in tears. Boy, oh boy, if you don’t get it, you obviously can’t take a joke and have no sense of humor. Get over it, get a life, quit whining. See, that’s the problem with conservatives these days; they’re so wound up with anti-political correctness that they really can’t see the humor in that simple five-word statement.

Ann Coulter, in case you haven’t been paying attention, is a woman (and I use the term loosely) who writes books that ride the hard line of eliminationist rhetoric about liberals while glorifying Republicans. Coulter, following Sept. 11, said of the Middle East, “We should invade their countries, kill their leaders, and convert them to Christianity.” And of course, there’s that famous quip where she said her only regret about Timothy McVeigh is that “he did not go to the New York Times building.”

Of course, I’m just using Coulter’s favorite form of humor, the ad hominem attack, when I write things like that first sentence. After all, she did suggest murdering a Supreme Court justice when she said, “We need somebody to put rat poisoning in Justice Stevens’ crème brûlée. That’s just a joke, for you in the media.”

See? No sense of humor at all on our side of the fence, so I figured I’d try it out myself for a while to, you know, get the hang of this “funny” business.

I’m all about understanding Ann Coulter nowadays. She’s got a new book that’s been staring out at me from the racks at Barnes and Noble and Costco, calling nice liberals like me “godless” (although she might have a point in my case), and in it she writes that the widows of 9/11 are just jumping in front of cameras because they get off on the attention.

“These self-obsessed women seem genuinely unaware that 9/11 was an attack on our nation and acted as if the terrorist attack only happened to them,” Coulter writes. “They believe the entire country was required to marinate in their exquisite personal agony. Apparently, denouncing Bush was part of the closure process. These broads are millionaires, lionized on TV and in articles about them, reveling in their status as celebrities and stalked by griefparazies. I have never seen people enjoying their husband’s death so much.”

Gee—“griefparazzies.” Haven’t heard a catchy neologism like that since Rush Limbaugh came up with “feminazis.” And they say liberals can’t take a joke. Holy cow, maybe they’re right.

Maybe this wouldn’t be so bad if Coulter didn’t regularly hit the best-seller lists with her venomous screeds. Or if she weren’t one of the top speakers on the right-wing collegiate Kinderfuhrer circuit, heading to college campuses to call liberal women hairy, smelly, man-hating lesbians. But the fact remains, she still regularly gets brought onto places like Fox News as some sort of “expert,” and she still is a regular keynote speaker at places like the Conservative Political Action Conference, a kind of right-wing jamboree where even Vice President Dick Cheney has given the opening address. Say what you want about liberals, but when Bill Clinton was president Michael Moore wasn’t the after-dinner speaker at any Democratic Leadership Council events.

Coulter’s latest rampage comes because the 9/11 widows had the temerity to assail President Bush. I’m guessing that even though many of them were Bush voters in 2000, something about Bush fighting the creation of a 9/11 investigatory commission every step of the way, only funding it with $3 million, and then refusing to testify under oath, and only with Cheney there to hold his hand, might have sent them in the direction of John Kerry. But for Coulter, it burns her manly briefs that someone with actual standing might have a complaint, as she told NBC’s Matt Lauer:

COULTER: If they have a point to make about the 9-11 commission, about how to fight the war on terrorism, how about sending in somebody we are allowed to respond to. No. No. No. We have to respond to someone who had a family member die. Because then if we respond, oh you are questioning their authenticity.

LAUER: So grieve but grieve quietly?

COULTER: No, the story is an attack on the nation. That requires a foreign policy response.

LAUER: By the way, they also criticized the Clinton administration.

COULTER: Not the ones I am talking about. No, no, no.

LAUER: Yeah they have.

COULTER: Oh no, no, no, no, no. They were cutting commercials for Kerry. They were using their grief to make a political point while preventing anyone from responding.

LAUER: So if you lose a husband, you no longer have the right to have a political point of view?

COULTER: No, but don’t use the fact that you lost a husband as the basis for being able to talk about, while preventing people from responding. Let Matt Lauer make the point. Let Bill Clinton make the point. Don’t put up someone I am not allowed to respond to without questioning the authenticity of their grief.

So she’ll laugh all the way to the bank, whoring outrageous opinions with every new book. I just wish I could get the joke, except I guess it’s on liberals like me.

Related stories

Political Animal archives

More from Brian Morton

The Fix (8/4/2010)

Police State (7/7/2010)

Funny Business (6/9/2010)

Comments powered by Disqus
CP on Facebook
CP on Twitter