7 'extraordinary' idiots(Ann Coulter)

WND.com ^ | June 1, 2005 | Ann Coulter

[perfect stranger]

Let's not put the seven Republican senators who engineered the "compromise" deal with the Democrats in charge of negotiations with North Korea. I would sooner trust the North Koreans to keep their word than the Democrats.

The North Koreans at least waited for the ink to dry on Clinton's 1996 "peace" deal before they set to work violating it by feverishly building nuclear weapons. After hoodwinking seven Republicans into a "compromise" deal, Senate Democrats waited exactly seven seconds before breaking it.

The deal was this: Senate Republicans would not use their majority status to win confirmation votes. In return, the Democrats promised to stop blocking nominees supported by a majority of senators – except in "extraordinary circumstances." Thus, a minority of senators in the party Americans keep trying to throw out of power will now be choosing federal judges with the advice and consent of the president.

The seven Republicans we're not leaving in charge of the national treasury believed they could trust the Democrats to interpret "extraordinary circumstances" fairly. And why not? It's not as if the Democrats have behaved outrageously for the past four years using their minority status to block Bush's nominees. Oh wait – no, I have that wrong. The Democrats have behaved outrageously for the past four years using their minority status to block Bush's nominees.

Hmmm. Well, at least the Democrats didn't wait until Trent Lott foolishly granted them an equal number of committee chairmanships following the 2000 election to seize illegitimate control of the Senate by getting future Trivial Pursuit answer Jim Jeffords to change parties after being elected as a Republican. Oops, no – they did that, too.

The seven Republican "mavericks," as the New York Times is wont to call them, had just signed off on this brilliant compromise when the Democrats turned around and filibustered John Bolton, Bush's nominee to be ambassador to the United Nations.

At least it wasn't an important job. But even so, didn't we win the last election? Why, yes, we did! And didn't we win a majority in the Senate? Yes, we did! To be precise, Republicans have won a majority of Senate seats the past six consecutive elections. (And the last six consecutive elections in the House of Representatives, too!)

I think that means Republicans should win. Republican senators support Bush's nominees and Democratic senators oppose them. The way disagreements like this are ordinarily sorted out in a democracy is that a vote is taken among our elected representatives, and majority vote wins.

But sometime after 1993 – which, by eerie coincidence, was the last time Democrats had a majority in the Senate – a new rule developed, requiring that the minority party win all contested votes. The Democrats – the same people the seven mavericks are relying on to play fair now – began using procedural roadblocks to prevent the majority vote from prevailing by simply preventing votes from taking place at all. Senate Democrats do this by voting not to vote, whereas Texas Democrats do it by simply boarding a Greyhound bus bound for Oklahoma.

Democrats tried "Count All the Votes (Until I Win)" – Al Gore, 2000. They tried "Vote or Die!" – P. Diddy, 2004. Those failed, so now the Democrats' motto is: "No Voting!"

The Senate majority leader, Bill Frist, thought the party with the most votes should be able to win. (Boy – talk about out of touch! And this guy wants to be president?)

The seven "maverick" Republicans thought a better idea would be to crawl to the minority party and plead for crumbs. If the "maverick" Republicans had a slogan, it would be: "Always surrender from a position of strength."

The deal they struck, this masterful Peace of Westphalia, simply put into writing the rule that the minority party controls the Senate – which will remain the rule until the Democrats aren't the minority party anymore.

No wonder Democrats were so testy about bringing democracy to Iraq: They can't bear democracy in America. Liberals' beef with Iraq's new government was that the Sunnis – the minority sect whose reign of terror controlled Iraq for almost 30 years – wouldn't be adequately represented. Obviously, this did not bode well for the Democrats – a minority party whose reign of terror controlled the U.S. House for over 40 years.

The only way for Americans to get some vague semblance of what they voted for is to elect mammoth Republican majorities – and no "mavericks." (Fortunately, for the sake of civilization and the republic, that process seems to be well under way.)

Chuck Schumer could be the last Democrat in the Senate and the new rule would be: Unanimous votes required for all Senate business. But at least we could count on Sens. Lindsey Graham, Mike DeWine, John McCain, John Warner, Olympia Snowe, Susan Collins and Lincoln Chafee to strike a deal forcing Schumer to agree not to block the 99 other senators except in "extraordinary circumstances."

[TomasUSMC]

FILIBUSTER THE AGREEMENT.

Thats right. Have the remaining loyal 48 republicans start a filibuster,that freezes the entire senate and that does not end till the 7 republican repudiate the agreement.

Fire with Fire.

[Chu Gary]

Sorry, I guess I have missed your editorials and your best selling books.

[BOBWADE]

McCain and his 6 buddy rhinocrats are fools. They didn't even realize that they got nothing in exchange for giving up everything. They agreed to legitimize the Dems right to filibuster in exchange for allowing the dems to rectify their biggest PR blunders of the decade. They were the ones taking heat for blocking Janice Rogers-Brown and others and were at the point of caving. This was the catalyst giving the momentum to the Republicans for invoking the constitutional option. What do we do? IMPLODE! (Man am I getting mad again) We let them rectify their biggest mistakes in exchange for selling out our own party. WHAT LOSERS!!!!!!!!!!! I would only hope that these 7 lose all chairmanships and RNC funding.

[texasflower]

I don't have to write editorials or best selling books.

I am a READER. As a READER of Ann's childish stuff, I am dissatisfied. Got a problem with that?

[VegasBaby]

***I'll take Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi over the likes of John McCain and John Warner any day. At least with the Democrats, I know where I stand.***

Well you certainly wouldn't know it considering the sham smoke and mirrors campaign Reid pulled last November. His slogan was..."Independent, like Nevada." He certainly did NOT want you to know were he stood. Unfortunately, the dimwitted voters bought it.

[BOBWADE]

Then to top things off, Frist shows that he has less testicles than mouse by not taking advantage of the moment. After the sellout, he should have lined up the cotes starting with the Borked nominees and made the Dems filibuster 7 nominees before they even got a chance to vote on the three that they did. After the first 5 or six filibusters, call a news conference to turn up the heat and then go nuclear. At least the 7 rhino's would have to go on the record opposing the option after multiple filibusters. They would have given it real thought before siding with the dems knowing what kind of commercials they were going to see in the next primary election.

[Chu Gary]

"I am a READER. As a READER of Ann's childish stuff, I am dissatisfied. Got a problem with that?"

My only problem is with people who claim odd things. Got a problem with that?

[knews_hound]

In 500 succinct and edited words, Ann Coulter nails it.

It seems the Repubs have won the last 6 elections and they act like it is 1977, Nixon has been thrown out and the GOP is at an all time low.

In an amazing coincidence, many of the 7 first held elected office soon after that.

Cheers,

knews hound

http://knewshound.blogspot.com/

[texasflower]

You think it's odd that I see Ann's stuff as childish?

First of all what part of "opinion" don't you understand?

Secondly, I'm not the only person who feels this way, but I am one of the few who will honestly say this stuff about Ann.

Reason? Because members of the Coulter cult can't handle the truth and they flame, flame, flame.

On another thread that reached almost 300 posts, I posted a mild opinion in the first 20 posts. At 289 posts, I am still being flamed for it.

As I see it, she is a mouthy, verbal bully who doesn't dress her age. She wears skirts that are inappropriate. They do nothing for her, only for the mid sections of men like you.

She is crude and unpleasant. She has become a liberal's dream because she can't control her mouth. She is as bad as Dean in some ways. They can use her rantings against us, just like we use Dean.

She crudely talked about blow jobs on a TV program the other night.

I was embarrassed to have her representing conservatives. She could be an asset. But she's not.

That's my OPINION and I don't give a damn what you think about it.

[BIGLOOK]

People claim odd things at odd times, oddly.

Good to see ya, Chu Gary!

[Mr. K]

Once again, I see your point but I disagree. That's her style, take it or leave it. Dave Barry writes funny, George Will writes boring (but brilliant) Ann writes this way...

I usually laugh my a$$ off at her laser-like needling of democraps, who deserve every bit of it.

[Chu Gary]

"You think it's odd that I see Ann's stuff as childish?"

Oh, I understand opinion and its definition just fine, I just don't understand why mouthy juveniles would be using this website - that term describes you perfectly!

[texasflower]

I may well be mouthy but I am far from a juvenile. I thought you little guys liked mouhty women? You all say it is her mind and her wit that you liked.

A women who has a mind and knows how to use it right?

You like that, right?

[Red Sea Swimmer]

"The Seven Extraordinary Idiots" just doesn't sound as good as "The Seven Samurai" does it ?

[El Oviedo]

How about Ann against Hillary - 2006?

[SevenMinusOne]

That's my OPINION and I don't give a damn what you think about it.

Don't sweat her Chu Gary - Her above remarks just about put texasflower in a nutshell - She is often wrong but never in doubt about her raving opinions - Which many on her already know -

And please Tex - "Ann's skirts are too short" - Texasflower, nobody cares what you think of her skirts - Why don't you just dress how you feel it is appropriate and stop worry about others...huh?...how about that.

And for the record Ann can intellectually think circles around you in her sleep.

[texasflower]

Well, well, well, here's the horrible devsix trying to bug me.

Didn't work honey.

[texasflower]

Oh, and that thing about Ann running circles around me in her sleep?

What makes you so sure? You know nothing at all about me.

First of all, my IQ test at 154, I don't know about her.

Not that it matters, because Ms. Coulter isn't actually using her brain. She using wit and sarcasm. Most of the things she says aren't "brilliant" they are merely sarcastic.

She has her catch phrases and each time she says them you guys think you are hearing from God himself.

But the second a "faceless" woman on the internet is sarcastic, you guys label us things like bitch, liberal, bleeding liberal and the other day, I got callled a commie because of a similar post on another thread.

You boys don't like sarcastic women unless she's in a short skirt. I don't know, do you imagine she's standing over you with a whip yelling, "say PLEASE and say you LIKE it INFIDEL!! ? Is that it?

Let me ask you something. If Ann looked like Nancy Pelosi and was saying all these wonderful sarcastic, bitting things but she was a conservative, would you still love her?

Oh, and don't actually bother to tell me the answer to that question above. It's easy to say "of course, it wouldn't make any difference, it's all about the cause", in answer to me.

Answer it to yourself. Give some thought to it. A big clue is the number of pictures of Coulter posted here. The RULES, don't forget the RULES. right?

Ann is not the best conservative writer we've got. She's just the one with the long blonde hair and short, short skirts.

As a woman, Ann is only furthering the opinion that looks count more than brains. She's not the best. She bores me to be honest.

Far better female columnists don't get the exposure here that Ann does. Don't mention Michelle Malkin as a default.

They are not the only two female columnist.

Understand something. I'm not a feminist. I personally adore men, and I'm not on some feminist kick here.

I just think that other columnists, male or female don't cause the same excitement around here that she does.

That's why I think you guys are deceiving yourself about her.

[SevenMinusOne]

Well now that was at least an entertaining (and even generally funny at times) post - I can appreciate it (even if I don't agree with all of it).

[Grateful One]

It is that brilliant use of sarcasm and wit that has brought Ann to where she is today. She brings to the forefront and highlights liberal hypocrisy in a way that few others can. Hence, her soaring popularity.

Liberals fear her style because it illustrates the constant contradictions in their "arguments". She comes after them in a way that reveals their lack of conviction, and, to me, her disdain of them in their presence reflects many of my own "feelings" towards these shallow pretenders.

Her "consistency" is what many of her readers look forward to!