If Democrats Had Any Brains, They’d Be Republicans
by Ben-Peter Terpstra | View comments |
Print This Post
As far as she is concerned, Ann Coulter is a middle-of-the-road moderate and the rest of you are crazy.
If Democrats Had Any Brains, They'd Be Republicans
by Ann Coulter
published by Crown Forum (October 2, 2007)
Hdbk., 288 pgs.
ISBN-10: 0307353451
ISBN-13: 978-0307353450
Conservative saleswoman of the year, Ann Coulter, believes that if Democrats had brains, they’d all be Republicans by now.
Looking for a laugh? Here are some of my favorite lines (from her book of quotations) you’ll be reciting for years:
• 1. My favourite: “Scratch a ‘civil libertarian,’ find a fascist.” – page 4
• 2. “Liberals will pass laws to protect children from ‘secondhand smoke’ but not from being doused with poisonous saline solution or having their skulls crushed in the womb.” - page 38
• 3. “Guns are our friends because in a country without guns, I’m what’s known as ‘prey.’ All females are.” – page 125
• 4. “Morality matters, not polls. In 1938, the polls were not very strong for doing anything in [the lead up to] World War II.” – page 138
• 5. “Luxuriating in the warmth of mainstream media admiration, liberal saints get crazier and crazier. They’re “beloved,” we’re ‘divisive’.” – page 183
• 6. “People who say ‘everybody does it’ are announcing nothing more than the implacable fact that they do it.” – page 211
• 7. “Mass murderers apparently can’t read since they are constantly shooting up ‘gun-free zones.’” – page 123
Funny and searingly controversial, If Democrats Had Any Brains, They’d Be Republicans challenges the much-ballyhooed “Golden Age” of Clintonism too. Connecticut’s Confucius says (page 61): “What actually happened during the Clinton presidency? No one can remember anything about it except the bimbos, the lies, and the felonies. Fittingly, in the final analysis, Clinton will not be remembered for what he did as president, but for who he did.”
I’ll say. Moreover, Coulter is also reviving time-honoured Christian values, by selling Webster’s Protestant ethic in a cocktail dress. If Democrats Had Any Brains documents some terrible abuses which include (but aren’t limited to): Democrats sexually abusing women in their workplaces, Democrats accepting bribes from FBI agents posing as Arab sheiks, Democrats stealing classified documents from the National Archives, and, of course, Democrats running homosexual prostitution rings from their Washington townhouses (my guess, without free condoms).
Yoking politically incorrect research to satirical talking points, Ann Coulter, 42, also informs her readers that: “As far as I’m concerned, I’m a middle-of-the-road moderate and the rest of you are crazy.” Is she enjoying the ride? I think she’s laughing all the way to the bank.
Every year sees great progress in Ann’s message, and politically incorrect accomplishments (from six bestsellers to sellout events). If Democrats Had Any Brains is the conservative movement’s little red book. Regardless, to those who make a profession of rooting against Christianity, Coulter is the “enemy.” Thus, Susan Estrich, a University of Southern California Law Professor, sniffs in Soulless (Ann Coulter and the Right-Wing Church of Hate) that: “She knows exactly what she is doing. And she is scary because of it.”
Other Americans outside of Santa Monica aren’t so sure. Just look at her bestsellers. Just read the headlines. As a popular writer of non-fiction for nearly ten years, Coulter really just wants to share the truth with a smile – and liberals are helping out. The “outspoken” conservative’s work ethic is clever: Coulter simply winds up Democrats with a few controversial statements and they sell books for her, while she sleeps in until midday.
Oh yes, Estrich went on (page 41). “Ann damns people as whores, dismisses entire races (Muslims) as terrorists (well, maybe only 10 percent of them), but so long as she doesn’t use the ‘s-word’ or the ‘f-word’ to do it, then it is ‘fun’ and a ‘pleasure’ to have her on. Or so the host says when she is done.” Seriously. Amid the pretend uproar, however, nothing encourages public disrespect for elitism more than seeing those who enforce “speech code” rules flip out.
In Estrich’s case, her argument started to crack when it was revealed that Islam is not a race. But professors can hardly give sanctimonious sermons about “race” if they refer to Michelle Malkin as – I quote – “an Asian terrier Ann” (Soulless, page 208). Or support weird “affirmative action” adventures. “If I knew as little about Islam as [liberals] know about American Christians, I would be guilty of a hate crime,” notes Coulter (page 52). Needless to say, liberals hate the “Protestant race.”
There’s a lot to think about. There’s Coulter’s take on morals (“I’ve been interested in the Democratic Party ever since I read Lolita” – page 208). There’s the conservative blonde’s take on theology (“If you want something to complicate a belief in God, try coming to terms with Michael Moore being one of God’s special creatures” – page 52). But more importantly, Coulter promises to offend everyone. “Please be patient,” she writes, “I am working as fast as I can.” I’m sure she is.
If Democrats Had Any Brains, They'd Be Republicans is available on Amazon.com.
pizzatrays@yahoo.com
http://pizzatraysandbeerbottles.blogspot.com
Read more articles by Ben-Peter Terpstra
Coulter is my hero. She's direct, abrupt, and offensive, but she is just what is needed to needle these sanctimonious leftists. I say to fellow conservatives, "No more mister nice guy." Go, Ann!
Comment by Mountain Man | November 7, 2007
By today's definition of folks calling themselves 'conservative' - the term 'Intellectual Conservative' is an oxymoron - used by the intellectually challenged and doctrinally blinded.
Ann Coulter typifies the type - which few respect unless they are doctrinally blinded themselves.
This comment is from a REAL conservative. The kind who actually cares about 'conserving' - and not your dogmatic, doctrinal one view dingbat who is an insult to intellectual discourse.
Comment by gnarlyerik | November 8, 2007
Conserving what? Glib platitudes? Name-calling as an art form? Bomb throwing discourse? If your post is the example we should follow for "intellectual discourse," I'd rather be stupid.
Comment by Mountain Man | November 9, 2007
You said it, I didn't. But I DID think it!
I suppose that's why Karl Rove said:
"As people do better, they start voting like Republicans - unless they have too much education and vote Democratic, which proves there can be too much of a good thing."
Comment by gnarlyerik | November 9, 2007
gnarlyerik doesn't need to worry that Coulter has a franchise on dogmatic dingbats. One need only visit DailyKos or moveon.org to confirm this.
Comment by Steve Sabin | November 11, 2007
No one has a franchise on dogmatic dingbats. That's very evident by the Mountain Man's posts on this topic.
There can be dingbats in any forum - but darned few 'intellectual' discussions can occur with folks wearing doctrinal blinders - no matter which side of the fence you're on.
Comment by gnarlyerik | November 11, 2007
I'm so glad that gnarlyerik knows what intellectual discourse is. I'm still waiting for some from him.
In typical leftist fashion, he tosses out a few insults, avoids or misses the point, and then assumes a mantle of superiority clearly not warranted by the contents of his posts.
To top it all off, he makes accusations and assumptions about others in an effort to marginalize them. But he has somehow not been able to state a single position about an issue.
Rather, he engages in broad generalizations and sweeping stereotypes which only serve to punctuate the fact that he doesn't know a thing about the subject at hand.
What a joke.
Comment by Mountain Man | November 11, 2007
Oh, and by the way, what exactly does Karl Rove have to do with any of this? Oh, I forgot, he's evil personified, the mad genius behind hapless George W. Bush. Or something like that.
I can hardly wait for the next verbatim talking point from the "Leftist Handbook of Conversation Stoppers."
Comment by Mountain Man | November 11, 2007
Karl Rove himself, in his own words, totally rebuts Ann Coulter’s book title. Those are his word, not mine. And I’d certainly be surprised if his words came from any “Leftist Handbook of Conversation Stoppers.”
Talk about making ‘broad generalizations and sweeping stereotypes’!
You have no idea at all what kind or person I am, or that I voted for Nixon, Reagan and Bush I, etc., and fought for my country. How many of you can say the same? You want to talk the talk but very few of you have ever walked the walk - and that is sad - for you and for the country.
People wearing those neocon right wing blinders and calling themselves selves ‘conservatives’ (what a laugh!) make the (erroneous) assumption that anyone who doesn’t agree with your point of view is a ‘leftist’, ‘communist’ or worse. Not only do you seriously delude yourselves, isolate yourselves, and insult the innocent - and thereby lose any potential support, but you also quickly demonstrate how intellectually incompetent you really are.
But then, those blinders are awfully restrictive aren’t they?
Comment by gnarlyerik | November 12, 2007
gnarlyerik,
Please describe for us what "doctrinal blinders" are and how these differ from an individual's guiding principles or ideological bedrock.
Comment by Steve Sabin | November 12, 2007
gnarlyerik,
I did not call you a leftist, I simply said that you debate like a leftist and then listed the techniques you used that leftists employ to silence their ideological opponents. If you're not a leftist, then please debate like a conservative.
Conservatives use facts, reason, and logic to present their case. You have not. You called me names and accused me of having ideological blinders.
Funny how you can toss out abrasive comments and then retreat back into your noble voting patterns and military service as if that somehow insulates you from warranted criticism.
I really don't care who you voted for. I want to know if you can carry on a conversation without acting like a leftist.
Comment by Mountain Man | November 13, 2007
Doctrinal blinders are those people use to shield themselves from reality - much as our current president does. And that is definitely not using 'facts, reason, and logic to present their case'. Saying something is so is not the same thing as it being so. Saying Iraq possessed WMD's for a good example - and there are countless others in this abysmal 'conservative' administration - yeah right, like "Mission Accomplished". Please - go take a reality pill or something.
Then, someone who disagrees is 'retreating back into noble voting patterns', or 'debating like a leftist'. And, I'm still looking for the names I've called anyone besides defining Ann Coulter as a dingbat - which about 85% of the country agrees with - including many moderate Republicans.
And, you didn't answer my question either:
"Have you ever put your own butt on the line in the service of your country at anytime, combat or not?"
Talking the talk is on the opposite side of the planet from walking the walk.
Comment by gnarlyerik | November 13, 2007
gnarlyerik,
I'm beginning to think that there is no reasoning with you. Please try to stay focused. Why are we talking about Bush? Or Rove? Who said they were conservative?
If you don't want to be characterized as debating like a leftist, then stop debating like a leftist. You said, "…the term ‘Intellectual Conservative’ is an oxymoron - used by the intellectually challenged and doctrinally blinded." Name call #1. Then you said, "Ann Coulter typifies the type - which few respect unless they are doctrinally blinded themselves." Name call #2. You said, "No one has a franchise on dogmatic dingbats. That’s very evident by the Mountain Man’s posts on this topic…" Name call #3. You said, "but you also quickly demonstrate how intellectually incompetent you really are." Name call #4. Is this not clear to you?
Ok, ok, let's talk about your service. Well done. Thank you for putting your butt on the line. Happy now? But again, you seem to have a penchant for bringing up the irrelevant, unless you are going to make the leftist argument that only people who have served should be allowed to have an opinion about the war?
Why don't you head over to the Huffington post. You'll find many kindred spirits over there who just love to toss out slogans and bumper-sticker analysis.
Comment by Mountain Man | November 13, 2007
So it turns out that my doctor won't write me a prescription for reality pills, probably because he's a neocon.
Comment by Katzen | November 13, 2007
Actually I made statements of facts as I see them - not name calling Mr. Mountain Man. Name calling is referring to Coulter as a ‘dingbat’, which 70% of all Americans seem to agree on. I did certainly call her a dingbat.
I guess if you are sort of prickly and insecure you might feel someone is calling you names your argument(?) is deficient. Why would you keep insisting that a person like me, who calls you on your position is ‘unfocused’ and can’t be reasoned with? And, I need to go over to Huffington Post, etc.?
Please. That’s not a debate. That’s dogmatic silliness. That’s the sort of thing someone does whose argument is weak and lacking - or simply bankrupt.
It’s a lot like resorting to swearing because of a limited vocabulary.
And, if remember correctly, all you so-called ‘conservatives’ eagerly, unequivocally and universally supported our unfortunate President Bush - and cheered his handler Karl Rove at the time. But, now that he’s proven to be such a disaster, you all are desperate to disown him. What’s up with that? Now he’s not a ‘conservative’ any more? When did that change?
THAT’s what I mean by saying the term ‘Intellectual Conservative’ being an oxymoron.
And, you still haven’t answered my question Mr. Mountain Man. What have YOU ever done for your country besides gush out a lot of rhetorical dogma, a la super-patriot & ditto head Rush Limbaugh?
I'm still waiting for more than, 'Ok, ok'.
Comment by gnarlyerik | November 14, 2007
gnarlyerik,
You just proved every point I made. You once again avoided the substance, obfuscated the issue, and continued in your leftist-style verbal assault.
It is you, sir, who set the tone. Your first post. All I have done is point out your continued folly and responded in kind. May I suggest that you cease before you totally make a fool of yourself?
It appears to me that you are incapable of following logic or reason. Your very word quoted back to you, and yet you still persist in saying you did not call me names? Then you, in perfect leftist fashion, call me names yet again.
Yes, this has not been a debate by your choice. You have yet to bring up a point that can be debated, you have pursued tangents and tossed out red herrings at every juncture. Who really knows what you want or what you believe except for the few leftist talking points you have regurgitated?
What have I done for my country? Are you serious? Who are you to impugn my integrity or insist that I defend myself? You know absolutely nothing about me, but for some reason feel free to insult me. Based on what evidence? That you served in the military? That you think that anyone who disagrees with you has blinders on? That Bush is stupid or evil?
What planet are you living on?
Comment by Mountain Man | November 14, 2007
Seventy percent of the country agrees that Ann Coulter is a dingbat? Yesterday it was 85%! Did she win over 15% of the country in a single day?
Comment by Katzen | November 14, 2007
Katzen,
I appreciate your fine comments. Nice to have you here. Maybe Gnarlyerik could take a page from our exchanges where we disagree, and do a little research on this website to find out what it means to have a conversation.
He's so fixated on eeevil Bush and Rove as being representative of conservatism. But somehow when conservatives disagree with Bush when he implements his non-conservative policies, it is us conservatives that are the problem? Oh, I forgot, we have blinders on, don't we, defending Bush at every turn. But wait a minute, now we aren't following Bush blindly, so we are "…all are desperate to disown him."
This is true leftist methodology. No matter what principle a conservative defends, the leftist mindset has a handy accusation to toss out. Must be wonderful to live in dream land.
Bravo, Katzen. Your short remarks are devastating.
Comment by Mountain Man | November 14, 2007
Mountain Man I never figured to get a straight answer out of you. Just more avoiding. That's pretty typical of what 'conservatives' have become in our country today, under the sway of the present day neos who are doing so much harm.
I'm not trying to 'impugn' anyone - just asking a simple question about what you have done that qualifies you to diss someone who has actually walked the walk. You'd have my respect if you have actually served your country with your own, personal sweat and blood - you will have earned that. I worried you might be just another one of those 'armchair patriots' so eager to send someone else off to war. The fact that you avoid a straight answer actually pretty much tells me all I need to know.
If I am mistaken, please set me straight.
I used to proud to be called a conservative - and I'm still a conservative in fact - just no longer do I want to be identified as such as they are presently defined.
Thanks Katzen, for setting me straight on Coulter. I didn't realize she had disgusted so many.
Comment by gnarlyerik | November 14, 2007
gnarlyerik,
Are you familiar with The Rule of Holes? Apparently not.
It's quite simple: when you find yourself in one, stop digging.
Comment by Steve Sabin | November 15, 2007
Steve,
I should have listened to you and not wasted my time. You were right. Outta here.
Comment by Mountain Man | November 15, 2007
There's a saying down in Texas about "All hat and no cattle" which refers to folks blowing lot's of smoke with little or no substance - and it's become glaringly obvious that's who I'm dealing with here, most certainly in 'Mountain Man'. Lot's and lots of blowing smoke, but no direct answers.
I am entertained by all the dodging, ducking, dipping and obfuscation that I'm seeing out of the so-called 'intellectual conservatives'. Pretty pitiful really - except it has kept me laughing.
And, yeah, the late Molly Ivins of Texas first authored the "Rule of Holes". It's too bad Bush didn't pay attention to it. Maybe you boys and girls should too!
Cheers to all you puffers out there! When you've learned to actually walk the walk, come back and do some solid posting.
Gnarly
Comment by gnarlyerik | November 15, 2007
Katzen,
I'd love to see where you got that statistic. Is that from a liberal source? Or did you come up with that spontaneously? Either way, it's great. Only a deep-dipped liberal would believe such a made-to-order statistic and fail to note the disconnect. Like, 85%, 70% … What-eV-er!
Comment by Robert W. Stapler | November 21, 2007