Every once in a while, Ann goes off the deep end. I’m afraid she’s doing it again. Too bad, because I usually really enjoy reading her stuff.
At least this would explain why she doesn’t like Sarah Palin. Too moral for her. Well, I think we need a president with moral values. Only way you can trust someone.
In proof of that, I would normally trust Ann to do the right thing. Then she comes out with this. Something cracked or broken in the moral compass, evidently.
Wonder if Ann has some relative who is gay?
Two points I would raise in defense of Coulter here.
First, I have myself pointed out that on some of the great issues of the day, issues that divide the conservatives from the bandwagon bunch, Palin is silent. Given Coulter's opinion way back when re: nominating Roberts for the high court as a similarly silent 'conservative,' I see Ann's opinion as based in the notion that conservative voters deserve truly, clearly conservative nominees, not just tough talkers, but candidates who have stated on ALL the issues that matter to conservatives what their position is. I'm not in the 'doesn't like Palin' camp. I think she's entertaining, talks tough, and comes across as pretty nice on TV. But Dick Armey and Bob Barr are also entertaining and comes across as nice. I'm not inclined to vote for either, because I know they don't walk the walk, and only particularly against Palin because she hasn't walked the walk, hasn't even talked the talk, in my opinion, on some of those legally thorny issues I find of real importance. I'm betting that as an attorney, Ann places similar importance on knowing where Palin stands on some issues where Sarah has been silent. I won't say "Ann agrees with me"--she doesn't even know I'm alive, I'm sure--but that is where I think she stands on Palin.
As to the second point, a person can be immoral (from others' perspective) and personally liberal but conservative politically, and moral and personally conservative and hold leftist opinions politically (if you haven't seen any examples of these archetypes recently, I can give you a few names). What Ann says to my ears here when she speaks of gays being a constituency that we should try to bring in to the fold, is that gays should naturally be on the "limited government" reservation, having been on the receiving end of an active government, discriminating against them. Instead, they are going off the deep end attempting to legislate government into being a ham-handed enforcer for THEIR interests. The result will be the same as it was when the law became a hammer swinging for blacks, women, and other favored minority groups. That is to say, silent seething from those whose real liberties are imposed upon in the name of faux 'civil rights,' subtle repercussions created by the put-upon where those are possible, and an eventual backlash that will make the 60s look like a schoolyard pissing match.
Definitely! Look how she insulted those with questions about Obama’s eligibility. She called them “cranks” and used the KKK to make her point. Was that necessary?
Not only is she wrong about Obama’s eligibility. She is insulting about it.
Her moral compass is not pointing at a true north.