7 'extraordinary' idiots(Ann Coulter)

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."

I'm glad to have provided a tiny bit of entertainment to your day, devsix. :-)

You know, what's important here on FR is about is that we all have the right to post our OPINIONS and acknowledge that we have differences of opinions and that's okay right?

Disagreements are one thing, but those "bleeding heart liberal", "commie" and "jealous" type remarks are silly and out of line.

I'm not talking about you in particularly. Mainly the freepers that tried to rip me to pieces on the other thread about Ann.

You should have been there devsix. Since you aren't very fond of me you could have had a good time. :-)

I didn't back down though. :-)

Thanks for your lighthearted and practical response.

highlights liberal hypocrisy

You make some good points. However, she runs the risk of being a bit of a "one trick pony" if she doesn't change her look and do some serious stuff from time to time.

She's a bit of a caricature right now, and I think she could do better.

Something you said was very compelling to me. You said that her disdain for the liberals reflects your own feelings.

That is something I tried to explain to some guys on another thread.

Besides her physical attributes, there is much of the "I wish I could say that on National television" about it.

Nonetheless, Ann isn't being her best by being a caricature. She's make herself PERFECT for the liberal cartoonists. A cartoon with long hair and micro skirts is immediately recognizable and not in a good way.

I respect your opinion and I thank you for respecting mine.

Tammy

Imagine the power she would have if she was UNpredictable!........

Howard Dean is unpredictable.

Terry MaCauliffe behaves like a juvenille.

Al Franken is off the chart.

Ann has two types of enemies, those on the left who feel exposed by her style, and those of the same political persuasion who envy her success........and her courage!

She writes in the same style that she speaks... either you like it... or you don't. It's what she's talking about that counts.

Her books are done in pretty much the same fashion... she's no William Manchester.

Her forte is debate... one-on-one. She can give conservative argument with some of the brashness of a young William F. Buckley... a commodity sadly lacking in todays Republican Party.

Coulter is a 'diamond-in-the-rough'... that deserves our appreciation.

Ann is running off some fence sitters.

There is no such thing as a conservative "fence sitter". Any true conservative could not possibly be sitting on the fence after observing what the RATs have done over the last four years.

You are a troll, or you have Alzheimers, or you are a liar, or perhaps there is some other explanation . . .

But let's be clear--it is impoosible for you to be "conservative" and a fence sitter.

Re Ann Coulter, you are wrong again. There are so very few commentators who tell it straight and true that Ann should be placed in the "National Treasure" category. Her commentary is usually dead on accurate and witty.

"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?"

For someone who just wrote a post referring to how crudely Ann was for mentioning a "blow job" on TV, you sure do seem to enjoy trying to use sexual innuendo to attempt to demean your opponents.

Yes. I love Ann, but her style, while fun to read msot times, is not the stuff that is going to make people reconsider their positions.

I agree. For the most part she preaches to the choir. If someones kids say they voted dim because of her then they were going to vote dim anyway.

Yes. I love Ann, but her style, while fun to read msot times, is not the stuff that is going to make people reconsider their positions.

Let me ask your opinion about something.

I think if she changed things up a bit, then she might be able to reach the fence sitters and make them realize that it's good to be a conservative.

I would hate to see her to stop using her wit and sarcasm.

I just think if she were to do intelligent but serious commentary from time to time instead of being a pit bull ALL the time, she could indeed reach the fence sitters.

Some of you guys who have met her say she is very warm and charming.

Wouldn't you love to see that side of her on TV? Young women would want to BE her. They ARE watching and she could really be a great example for our young people.

If she started wearing colorful stylish clothes, instead of her black micro skirts she would be more appealing to the women, both young and adult and let's face it, we NEED the women and young adult vote.

Don't you think she could be even more lovely and effective if she were to tone it down AT TIMES?

I am not envious of her success. I think if she doesn't make some changes, she is going to be nothing but a one trick pony.

A caricature.

I'm sure you thought you were being funny by bringing in the liberal nutjobs, but unpredictable doesn't have to mean crazy.

She's got more to offer and I wonder why she doesn't use it.

Any true conservative could not possibly be sitting on the fence after observing what the RATs have done over the last four years.

People who don't pay attention to politics (and most don't to the extent we do), might not even realize they have more in common with us than the liberals. Many, many people don't have any real idea of what goes on.

That happens all the time.

The democrats have the reputation as the "cool" party.

Young, attractive, bright Ann Coulter COULD show them that it's cool to be a republican.

But no. What she shows them is that all the dems who say republicans are mean and intolerant of everything is right.

The libs are wrong, but why do we applaud Ann Coulter for giving off that same vibe?

Don't you think she could be even more lovely and effective if she were to tone it down AT TIMES?

I agree wholeheartedly. The pit bull shtick is great in small doses and would be more effective if it was not the norm. Serious advocacy for conservative positions are not served well by a pit bull mentality. Could anyone imagine Ronald Reagan saying anything in the way she does? I can't. Ann is very intelligent and witty but her act pushes her to the margins.

For someone who just wrote a post referring to how crudely Ann was for mentioning a "blow job" on TV, you sure do seem to enjoy trying to use sexual innuendo to attempt to demean your opponents.

Finally you noticed. On any thread that I've mentioned Ann Coulter, I do the same thing. I make my points and then wait for the inevitable and numerous posts about how I must be jealous or a liberal.

Then I try my best to be obnoxious. It infuriates most of you. I get called all sorts of names and I'm accused to being mean and mouthy.

Then it leaves it open for me to say this.......

HOW COME IT'S OKAY FOR ANN TO DO IT BUT NOT ME?

It's no wonder I'm convinced that if she looked like Helen Thomas you guys would be saying the same thing I am.

You don't like mouthy girls at all. You all hate me for doing the same thing she is doing. Being mouthy, sarcastic and demeaning, but you don't like it from me.

You bash me and cheer her.

I think many of you are actually thinking with your little head.

but why do we applaud Ann Coulter for giving off that same vibe?

Ann Coulter is on target nearly all the time.

Ann Coulter is witty.

Ann Coulter speaks the truth and is NOT politically correct in her choice of words. Being that, she is unique, one of very few and a national treasure.

"We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity. We weren't punctilious about locating and punishing only Hitler and his top officers. We carpet-bombed German cities; we killed civilians. That's war. And this is war."

There was only one commentator or columnist or show host who had the guts to say this. It was Ann Coulter. As each passing day goes on, this commentary becomes more and more right on target. The politically correct war we are fighting does not work, and the terrorists are not practicing "religion", it is a cult of murderers, and they SHOULD be converted.

How refreshing it is to have a commentator like Ann Coulter who tells it straight and true and direct. How sad it is that there is only one Ann Coulter out there and not one other columnist or host who has the insight and guts to be straight on honest, and hits the bulls eye with nearly every shot.

"Finally you noticed. On any thread that I've mentioned Ann Coulter, I do the same thing. I make my points and then wait for the inevitable and numerous posts about how I must be jealous or a liberal.

Then I try my best to be obnoxious. It infuriates most of you. I get called all sorts of names and I'm accused to being mean and mouthy.

Then it leaves it open for me to say this.......

HOW COME IT'S OKAY FOR ANN TO DO IT BUT NOT ME?"

Why is it okay for Ann to "do it" and not you? Because it's you who took exception to it in your critique. Nobody took exception to Ann using that technique until you started you moaning.

"It's no wonder I'm convinced that if she looked like Helen Thomas you guys would be saying the same thing I am."

I guess that's why so many people who are Coulter fans are fans of Rush Limbaugh and Neil Boortz...fat white guys give us a "hard-on" too.

"You don't like mouthy girls at all. You all hate me for doing the same thing she is doing."

"Mouthy" isn't the problem. I think I can speak for many when I say that it's "stupid" we don't care for.

"I think many of you are actually thinking with your little head."

Obviously, you're not using your "little head" very well.

I am not envious of her success..................

Interesting. I never said that you were. I actually had in mind, people like Bill O'Reilly, who never misses the chance to dismiss Ann as a "right winger" when he interviews her.

Seems I hit a nerve with you.

Since you seem to want to dismiss the idea of using wit and sarcasm as a viable literary tool, as to their effectiveness in promoting ideas, then I assume you also discount the reputations of the likes of Desiderius Eramus and Bertrand Russell (hero of the left), both who made great impressions on contemporary thought in their times, with precisely those literary "tactics".

I do like the fact that you have challenged many of us who enjoy Ann, but I think time will prove that Ann will remain popular, much to your dismay.

You accused me of trying to be funny, which I was not. I was just trying to make a point. Therefore, you have become personal, in my view, and I will now "dismiss" you and ignore any further postings of yours.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.