T Nation

Coulter.....That's My Girl


.....telling it like it is.



January 19, 2006
'Chocolate City' Sprinkled With Nuts
By Ann Coulter

So Hillary Clinton thinks the House of Representatives is being "run like a plantation." And, she added, "you know what I'm talking about."

First of all: Think about what a weird coincidence it is that Hillary would have made these remarks in a black church in Harlem on Martin Luther King Day. What are the odds? Did she even know it was a holiday? Bravely spoken, Senator. I haven't been this surprised since finding out Hollywood likes a movie about gay cowboys.

As Hillary explained, the House "has been run in a way so that nobody with a contrary view has had a chance to present legislation, to make an argument, to be heard."

Yes, that's what was really missing on plantations during the slavery era: the opportunity to present a contrary view. Gosh, if only the slaves had been allowed to call for cloture votes. What a difference that would have made!

Madam Hillary also said the Bush administration "will go down in history as one of the worst that has ever governed our country." While Hillary is certainly qualified to comment on what the all-time worst presidential administrations were, having had firsthand experience in one of them, I think she might want to avoid the phrase "go down in history."

All I can say is: It's a good thing we had a stealth candidate like Harriet Miers to tiptoe past these powerful, scary Democrats! Sorry if that sounds churlish, but after Judge Samuel Alito's magnificent performance last week, I think Republicans can stop being afraid of their shadows when it comes to our judicial nominees.

Ever since Bork, Republicans have been terrified of nominating candidates with something in their background that might possibly suggest the nominee did not get down on his knees (another phrase Hillary should avoid) and thank God for Roe v. Wade every night. That's how we ended up with mediocrities like David Hackett Souter and Anthony "Third Choice" Kennedy on the Supreme Court.

Besides being stunningly qualified, the characteristics of the current stellar Supreme Court nominee include these:

His mother immediately told the press, "Of course he's against abortion."

He had expressed support for the Reagan administration's positions on abortion in a 1985 memo.

He refused to accede to the Democrats' endless browbeating and tell them that Roe was "settled law."

And the Democrats couldn't lay a finger on him. Sam Alito marks the final purging of the Bork experience.

All the Democrats could do was scream about his inactive membership -- back in the '70s -- in CAP, Concerned Alumni of Princeton, which had a magazine called Prospect, which once ran an article, apparently satirical, complaining about Princeton admitting co-eds. In my mind, the only potentially disqualifying aspect of Alito's record was that he wasn't a more active member of CAP, a group opposed to quotas, set-asides and the lowering of academic standards at Princeton.

Then this week, we found out Sen. Teddy Kennedy still belongs to an organization that doesn't admit women. Oh -- also, he killed a girl.

I'm fairly certain I've mentioned that before -- I don't recall, Mr. Chairman -- but I don't understand why everyone doesn't mention it every time Senator Drunkennedy has the audacity to talk about how "troubled" and "concerned" he is about this or that nominee. I bet Mary Jo was "troubled" and "concerned" about the senator leaving her in trapped in a car under water while he went back to the hotel to create an alibi.

It's not as if Democrats can say: OK, OK! The man paid a price! Let it go! He didn't pay a price. The Kopechne family paid a price. Kennedy weaved away scot-free.

But the Democrats are "troubled" about Sam Alito's membership in Concerned Alumni of Princeton 30 years ago. If they're "concerned" about lifetime appointments for people with memberships in "troubling" organizations, wait until they hear about Bob Byrd! (Former Kleagle, Ku Klux Klan.)

They're a rotten bunch, these Democrats, and I'm happy to see an end to their reign of terror.

Now that Zell Miller is out of office, the only office-holding Democrat I like anymore is Ray Nagin, mayor of New Orleans. I had never heard of him until Hurricane Katrina, but after his "gaffe" this week, he's my favorite Democrat. I like a politician who casually spouts off insanely politically incorrect remarks in front of large audiences and TV cameras.

Nagin cheerfully told a crowd gathered for a Martin Luther King Day celebration that New Orleans would soon be "Chocolate City" again. I don't know who's supposed to be offended by that. I'm not. Perhaps all the white mayors who know they couldn't have said it. True, life's unfair. Oh well.

When it comes to choice-of-word crimes, I'd prefer detente to mutually assured destruction. Lead us off the chocolate plantation, Mayor Nagin!


I think this is the first Ann Coulter piece in about four years that I have not hated, its not bad at all.

I still hate all pundits though.


Coulter cracks me up sometimes.

I think the Democrats hate her because she is just as bitter as they are.


Democrats and Republicans are equally bitter.

Coulter is irresponsible.


Who cares,this is the first time I've actually heard what she says.Normally I'm to busy drooling over her legs like Homer drools over doughnuts and porkchops.


Reading Ann's work helps get rid of the aftertaste of watching/reading the MSM.

Nobody like Annie!!


She truly makes reasonable, rational people who hold well-thought out conservative beliefs idiotic-by-association.

If I were a right-winger, I would cringe everytime she opened her mouth, the same way I do when Jeneane Garofalo speaks.


She's bony as hell, but I'd still do 'er.


Ann Coulter is a partisan hack. But this piece was good.


She is a huge idiot. There is a reason USA Today axed her democrat convention article. She is so full of hate


Reading this article, I'd have to say Hillary made a very good speach.

Does Ann lift weights?


Didn't think so.


Thanks for this article!!!

I want everyone to notice that the dems on this board have used their responses to attack the person.

Not her commentary.

God, I trully hope some of these "holier than thou" dems have noticed the BLATANT HYPOCRISY involved in ted kennedy/byrd making moral arguments.

Again, I hope.

However, it wouldn't surprise me if it didn't cross the dems mind (cnn/npr didn't spoon feed them the thought.)

Again, excellent piece.



I love Anne.


So, democrats can't attack the character of a person who is actively attacking someone else's character?

That's so stupid it's...stupid.

And, yes: CNN told me what to think, but you certainly parsed and dissected Annie's column and made up your own mind about it.



"So, democrats can't attack the character of a person who is actively attacking someone else's character?"

I'll meet you half-way: Attack the character THEN offer intelligent commentary discussing why you think the argument is flawed.

I know, I'm asking for the moon from you.

"That's so stupid it's...stupid.

And, yes: CNN told me what to think, but you certainly parsed and dissected Annie's column and made up your own mind about it.


Thanks for the insult. I expect nothing more from you.

Anyway, I read the column as presented. I decided her logic was unanswerable. Therefore, I gave her credit. No matter the source, she cut to the chase and pointed out obvious hypocrisy.

If I was a floundering democrat, I'd be VERY disenchanted with my leadership.

How many elections do you have to lose before you start calling for some change?

I thought 2002 would have done it. Happily, you guys seem more interested in obstruction/finger pointing/Monday morning quarterbacking/shrill soundbites than pulling yourselves together.

Again, you and your pals' response is EXACTLY what keeps you losing. Here is the problem: I hate ..... therefore, he/she must be opposed at all costs. I don't really care if they make sense, they must be opposed. I don't have logic on my side, so I will attack them personally.


On a personal note, I DO appreciate you immediately proving my point about democrats, however.




I think it's her lying, slander, and misinformation that people with sense/brains dislike.


"I don't really care if they make sense, they must be opposed. I don't have logic on my side, so I will attack them personally."

That's exactly what Ann Coulter does. Continually and constantly.

Kennedy! Byrd! Kennedy! Byrd!

Nothing about their politics, just their personal lives.

Imagine the fun she would have with an ex-cokehead president, a vice-president who was arrested twice for drunk driving, and a first lady who killed someone in a car accident.

Now, where could we find a motley crew like that?


***I agree with you, about Colter and Jeneane. Colter actually started out this article surprisingly well, then devolved into the usual irrelevant sewage. The Alito hearings are about his suitability to on the SCOTUS. Ad hominem attacks against Kennedy and Byrd are irrelevant, and dilute any real message she is trying to convey. As far as hypocrisy, Ann Coulter is hate-spewing, violence-advocating, xenophobic,hard-drinking, promiscuous and a christian who comments on the morality of others. She is unworthy of the time that we spend on her.


You are correct. She does use the Democrats tactics!


I second this, I agree with her general point, but I feel wrong for doing so. Your post crystallizes why.