Annie Get Your Gun

Ann Coulter wrote a book that may, or may not, contain a controversial statement that is being demonized by liberal politicians and the liberal media.

Coulter is to liberals what Father Merrin was to Pazuzu in The Exorcist. She is the cultural equivalent of critical mass for liberals. She is their Pavlov's Bell.

However, liberals have selective recall. They need to be reminded of a few things.

Liberals need to be reminded that Coulter has never mentioned assassinating a Democrat president, something said by at least two prominent liberal pundits.

Liberals need to be reminded that Coulter has never said the wife of a liberal Supreme Court Justice should cook meals for him that will cause a stroke - something said by a famous liberal newspaper columnist about Justice Thomas.

Liberals need to be reminded that Coulter has never said that a liberal congressman should be stoned to death - as a renowned liberal actor did about Illinois Congressman Henry Hyde.

Liberals need reminding that Coulter never said that the best way to deal with the leader of a liberal advocacy group is to shoot him - as a well-known liberal moviemaker did about Charlton Heston.

So pardon me if I do not get so outraged by anything that Ann Coulter may have written in her new book, "Godless: The Church of Liberalism." I am so used to the vicious, hateful, mean-spirited, despicable, invective of Democrats and liberals that anything a conservative would say about liberals can only be considered reciprocity.

I understand why liberals are outraged and why they want the average American to be outraged. They feel they can politically exploit L' Affaire Coulter. (They cannot - the average person knows there is vitriol by both sides, just as they know both parties can be corrupt.)

While I am not shocked of the righteous indignation of Hillary Clinton, I am somewhat amused by the righteous indignation of some Republicans and conservatives. They have tripped over themselves running to the nearest microphone to distance themselves from Coulter.

Last night, I watched Coulter on Fox News Channel's National Heartland with John Kasich. Kasich, a former Republican congressman, soundly criticized her. The Richie Cunningham like, occasionally pious, Kasich began by chastising her about her alleged comments. He then informed Coulter that his wife said she, 'really likes Ann, but doesn't understand why she has to be so mean.'

What occurred next made Kasich look foolish. Coulter asked him if either he or his wife ever read her book.

Ann then informed him that her critics often misquote or distort her remarks. She said that Kasich, and his wife, were not appalled by what she wrote; they were appalled by what the New York Daily News said she wrote.

Kasich is not alone though. Several other well-known Republicans and conservatives have done the same.

The question is why? Why do Republicans and conservatives feel the need to demonstrate that they will not condone vitriolic remarks about liberals or Democrats?

Are they doing it to show their gentility? Are they doing it because of principle? Are they doing it not to anger their political opponents?

If they do not want to anger their political opponents -forget about it. Democrats and liberals are always going to hate them.

If they are trying to demonstrate their gentility - there are other ways to do so.

If they are trying to demonstrate how principled they are, then they are doing the exact opposite. They are demonstrating, as a group, that they are extremely insecure.

This last analysis seems the most likely. Conservatives and Republicans always give the impression they are walking on eggs. After a decade of being the nation's majority political party, Republicans still act as if they need to explain themselves.

This is baffling. The fact that Republicans are the majority political party is an extraordinary accomplishment when one considers that the opinion forming institutions in this country - the news media, the entertainment industry, and the education establishment - are clearly liberal and sympathetic to Democrats.

This indicates that average Americans are center-right, at the very least, in their political beliefs. Why some Republicans - even in the liberal Northeast and West Coast - feel they cannot spout conservative ideas is inexplicable.

I have not read Coulter's book. I don't know what she wrote. As I said, it does not matter. It could never be worse than what liberals and Democrats have said about conservatives and Republicans.

I do know that conservatives and Republicans need not apologize for her. At least not until liberals and Democrats apologize for their own diatribes.

Michael P. Tremoglie is the author of the new novel Sense of Duty refer to http://www.geocities.com/ddc4010/

The libs need to be attacked in a direct fashion. Ann is the spear. She confronts the libs regarding their hate driven prejudicial stereotyping. There is nothing intellectually honest about the libs protestations.

Their hate-affair with GWB is illustrative. Even an incurably incompetent GWB would have stumbled by chance onto some correct actions. But the perverse hate spewing left can never acknowledge even the most modest of intelligent human traits to someone they have worked so hard at demonizing and de-humanizing.

It is truly a terrifying display of raw hatred that we are witnessing. It is not rational. It is at it's root...pathological. It is precisely the kind of hatred that spawns murder and genocide. It is a hatred brewed up inside of a person intended to alleviate a deep inner ache. A dark inner wound. And once this hatred finds it's target it will not yield to logic or reason. It will relentlessly pursue it's target and revel in it's merciless and brutal destruction.

Perhaps that's the deep root of kinship the libs and Islamonazis share. Lets face it, there is some kind of chemistry there. It may not have been love at first sight but I can see those two groups enjoying one big night of unified bawdy celebration at the news of GWB's demise.

GWB is the personification of everything hated in our post-modern world. He is a traditionalist. He is a man. He is a Christian. He is a Texan. He is a capitalist. And he is unapologetic.

Ultimately that is all that matters. He is guilty by design as are all of us who share any of those characteristics. GWB presents the perfect storm of personal qualities that makes him unworthy of not only the presidency, but life it's self. He pushes the nuclear destruct buttons of the liberal mind simply by speaking, by breathing, by being. He and his kind cannot and will not be tolerated by the tolerance set.

It is only through his destruction that they can affirm their humanity.

So to argue or debate these people on this or that issue is to honor their motivations and respect their intentions far more than they deserve. They have no intention of entering into a partnership of equals resulting in shared values and compromise. We are the enemy and their very lives depend on our defeat. Not the defeat of Islamonazis. Not the defeat of poverty, crime, racism, intolerance and ignorance.

In the simplistic hate filled mind of the modern lib all the ills of the world will suddenly dissolve when men and women like GWB cease to exists or at the very least are exiled to the back of life's bus. Placed as far from the controls as is necessary to insure we have no influence. And if we don't learn and accept our place, force will be quick and severe.

So Ann is the spear. She is placing a dagger directly in the heart of the demon by speaking the truth. And the demon is gnashing and thrashing about while the pretty frail blonde girl unflinchingly stares into the bowels of Hell. Reminds me of that scene from the exorcist. All the demons hysterically screaming and threatening and wailing...cause they know they've been found out and they've met their match.

So, one point is possibly incorrect, therefore she is a witch and the body of her work is by implication false?

Nope. The article is premised on the contention that Ann Coulter has never said anything as bad as the worst things a motley collection of liberals have said. But, in fact, Coulter has indeed said something equivalent to what one of them has said. So we have to conclude the article's conclusions are based on faulty premises.

I myself think defending someone, by claiming they're not as bad as the worst I can think of on the other side, is not much of a defense, but that's just me. "Ann Coulter - as far as we know, she has never strangled a puppy!"

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.