Tuesday, March 11, 2008
Last week, Mike Adams, a writer on Townhall.com, called out Ann Coulter for her recent campaigning for Hillary. A couple weeks ago, I posted portions of one of her first pro-Hillary columns which made the case that voting for a liberal Democrat would be better in the long run for the country than voting for a mostly liberal (or at least wishy-washy) Republican. At the time, I hadn't decided what I was going to do as far as November is concerned, but after reading and thinking some more about the issue, I believe it most prudent to vote for McCain in November. Mike Adams makes a part of the case here:
[J]oin me in imaging the following three-part scenario: 1) the choice for President comes down to McCain and Clinton; 2) Ann Coulter sticks by her guns and supports her “girl” Hillary; 3) Clinton is elected.
It should go without saying that Roe v. Wade will never be over-turned if those three things happen. Even a one-term Clinton presidency will give her at least two picks for the USSC. And we can all expect picks with the ideology of a Laurence Tribe (or maybe an Alan Dershowitz) coming from President Rodham Clinton.
On the other hand, a President McCain may well pick judges who think like Chief Justice John Roberts. And that would provide at least some hope that Roe could be over-turned.
When it appeared that Rudy Giuliani was the front runner for the Republican nomination Ann said she could never support him for president because he is pro-choice. But Giuliani is a pro-choice Republican who opposes partial-birth abortion. Clinton is a pro-choice Democrat who supports partial-birth abortion. Why does the same litmus test not apply? What explains the inconsistency in Coulter’s position?
The answer is really very simple: Ann Coulter cares more about selling books than she cares about saving babies.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
"The answer is really very simple: Ann Coulter cares more about selling books than she cares about saving babies."
It took you THIS long to figure that out?
Welcome to my blog, Paul. Feel free to peruse the global warming section, since that appears to be a place you need to start.
As for your comment... Coulter says a lot of good and accurate things. Her wit is largely unparelleled (Mark Steyn being one exception) and her way of ripping liberals without them understanding it is hilarious. However, she tends to repeat herself a bit too much (e.g. her Ted Kennedy and Bill Clinton jokes), seems to think a little too highly of her influence among conservatives, and can by quite hyperbolic at times (her support for Hillary is just the latest example). Her point that a McCain win could be quite more harmful to the conservative agenda than a Hillary win is pretty astute and worth considering. However, as Mike Adams pointed out, a more-pressing agenda has to be considered as well; the pro-life one.
Darius,
She might be one of the more interesting right wing commentators out there, but she's a blowhard first and foremost. Her stand on McCarthy is simply ridiculous, and it's one of many things that simply spits in the face of the conservatism that she says she espouses.
Frankly, I have no problem with the George Wills and William F. Buckleys of the world that are (or were) libertarian (read: truly right wing), but republican zealots like Ann, I have no use for. You can't claim to stand for less government intrusion in people's lives and then skewer Mike Huckabee for his stance on Texas v. Johnson.
She's simply ridiculous and I think she throws grenades out there just to get attention.
If that's your role model of what a spokesperson for the right wing ought to be, then right on then.
Personally, I was crushed when I found out that both her and Tucker Carlson are fellow Dead heads.
Post a Comment