She consistently worked her (extremely) little butt off to ensure that conservatives were PO'd and unwilling to vote for Republicans in the general election, and thus ensured the election of Democrats, and she did this solely to boost her sales.
Handing power to the Democrats is constructive treason--hell, even Ann has said so. They stabbed our military in the back in Vietnam, and they're going to do it in Iraq. They give victory to the enemy. That's "giving aid and comfort."
She's worked very hard to do just that.
You could just as easily make the case the moderate wing of our party committed treason by disenfranchizing the right wing. Both arguments are equally accurate.
First of all, I'd guess that the "Internet gaming" ban probably had more to do with Republicans' losses than Ann Coulter. So would you accuse the ban's sponsors of treason?
Secondly, Ms. Coulter's statements tied in with a paradoxical conundrum illustrated by The Maltese Falcon. The villain is threatening to kill Humphrey Bogart's character if he doesn't tell them where the Falcon is. Bogey points out that if he dies, so does the secret of the Falcon. The villain suggests to Bogey that while that's true, he doesn't always behave rationally (and thus the threat is still real).
Conservatives want their congresscritters to actually behave like conservatives. They threaten to withhold support if they don't. The congresscritters contemptuously threaten that if they're unelected the conservatives will suffer, so it would be irrational for the conservatives to carry through with that threat; they thus feel they can ignore the conservatives.
What would be nice would be if we could show the Republicans that we were willing to withhold support if they go too far left, without our actually having do so. Unfortunately, that isn't possible. Our apparent unwillingness in the past to act against left-leaning Republicans has made them oblivious to any such threats.
IMHO, the major goal of many people stirring up conservative discontent was to try to convince Republicans in Congress that they needed to acknowledge their base. Had the Republicans done so, conservatives would have rewarded them with support and everyone on the right would have benefited.
Oh well--too late now.
That's Ok PaleHorse, you're allowed to not like Ann and tell us all about it. But as someone else mentioned, it's a twisted logic that draws you to your conclusion.
You obviously haven't yet gotten the real message from this year's election debacle.
It is NOT about party. It IS about principles. The Republicans did not do what they were sent to do, what they promised to do: balance the budget, reduce the size and scope of the federal government, secure our borders, etc.
People are looking for leaders, not politicians. We have an overabundant supply of politicians and an absolute dearth of leaders. Leaders do the right thing, not the expedient thing.
Until the GOP leadership learns these lessons, the GOP will be doomed to defeat. You can take out your frustration on Ann Coulter if you want (she's had tougher people than you try to attack her), but she is NOT the reason the Rats will be in charge. She did NOT "hand power" to the Rats. GOP leadership failures handed power to the Rats. Thinking anything different is ignoring the true meaning behind Tuesday's elections.
I agree with Rush--conservatism didn't lose on Tuesday. Republicanism lost. Conservatism works every time it's tried. Republicans in Congress forgot where they came from and why they were sent to Washington.
People need to quit whining, learn what they can from this whole thing and return to the principles that made the party great. If the GOP returns to its conservative roots, the Rats' fairly tenuous grip on Congress will be done away with in 08.
If you literally believe that, implying that Democrats are literally terrorists and terrorist sympathisers, then it is your moral obligation to kill as many Democrats as you can. Otherwise, you're just speaking hyperbole.