Ann Coulter: Party of Adultery and Abortion Takes A Hit

It was a stunning, record-breaking night. George Bush is the first President in 68 years to gain seats in his first midterm election. Historically, the party in the White House loses seats in the midterm election. This is true even in wartime: Franklin D. Roosevelt lost 50 House seats and eight Senate seats 10 months after Pearl Harbor.

Though Democrats gleefully cite the midterm election of 1998 when the Democrats picked up six House seats—and no Senate seats—that was Clinton’s second midterm election. Republicans had already realized all their midterm gains in Clinton’s first midterm election. In the very first election after people got a look at Clinton in 1994, Republicans picked up 52 seats in the House, eight seats in the Senate, 11 governorships and 12 state legislative chambers. Not a single Republican incumbent lost.

Thanks to Clinton, the ’94 Republican sweep marked the first time in half a century that Republicans had a majority in the House. (It was one of many historic moments in the Clinton Administration—another being "First President accused of rape within weeks of being impeached.") That sweep meant voters in about 50 congressional districts had done something they had never done before in their entire lives: Vote Republican in a congressional election. There was no reason to expect lifelong Democrats in those districts to keep voting Republican in every successive election.

To the contrary, Democrats should have won back a lot of the seats they lost in 1994. By the standard of historical averages, in the 1998 midterm election, the Democrats should have won back 22 House seats. Instead they won only six seats. The average midterm loss this past century is 30 seats in the House. Clinton’s average was 46.

The media billed the Democrats’ paltry gain in 1998 as a victory for Clinton and revulsion with impeachment for the same reason they say Bush "stole" the presidential election. Liberals love to lie. (Someone should write a book about that.)

By contrast, in Bush’s first midterm election last week, Republicans made spectacular gains all over the country. It was such a blowout that over on CBS, Dan Rather had to keep retelling viewers about Sen. Lautenberg’s victory in New Jersey. (Good thing Election Day finally came without another Democrat realizing the voters were on to him, or the Democrats might have had to unwrap Tutankhamen.)

All night, victories rolled in for Republicans, even shocking victories no one had expected. They picked up seats in the House and Senate. Republicans won a double whammy with Democrat-target Jeb Bush winning in Florida and Kathleen Kennedy Townsend losing in Maryland. Democratic bête noire Katherine Harris won her congressional election. In stunning upsets, Republicans won the governorships in Hawaii and Georgia. The Republican juggernaut could not be stopped.

Democrats may be forced to shut down operations as a party and re-enter politics under a different name. The party formerly known as "the Democratic Party" will henceforth be doing business under the name "the Abortion Party."

That would have the virtue of honesty. Love of abortion is the one irreducible minimum of the Democratic Party. Liberals don’t want to go to war with Saddam Hussein, but they do want to go to war to protect Roe v. Wade.

Inasmuch as George Bush rather than Barbra Streisand will be picking our federal judges, even now liberals are sharpening their character assassination techniques. People for the American Way—representing Americans up and down the Malibu beachfront—are already lining up lying Anita Hills to accuse Bush’s judicial nominees of lynching blacks and burning crosses.

This is precisely the sort of Clintonian viciousness that Americans indicated they were sick of on election night. The Democrats’ motorcycle rally-cum-funeral in Minnesota for Paul Wellstone exposed the party’s character in a pellucid, dramatic way. It was so revolting, people couldn’t avert their eyes from the spectacle. The only moral compass liberals have is their own will to power. Even the deaths of three members of a family could not slow them down.

If the party formerly known as "the Democrats" doesn’t like the factually correct "Abortion Party," how about "the Adultery Party"? Noticeably, the only incumbent Republican senator to lose was Tim Hutchinson of Arkansas, who left his wife for a staffer a few years ago. I’m proud to be a member of a party that still frowns on that sort of thing.

The end result of a Democratic President’s being caught in an adulterous affair with an intern was: Two Republicans resigned from Congress. Meanwhile, the felon in the White House was revered as a latter-day George Washington by the Adultery Party. And consider that Newt Gingrich and Bob Livingston were mere congressmen. Bill Clinton, Teddy Kennedy, Jesse Jackson and Gary Hart are deemed presidential material by the Adultery Party.

What a miserable party. I’m glad to see their power end, and I’m sure they’ll all be perfectly comfortable in their cells in Guantanamo. As Jesse Helms said on Ronald Reagan’s election in 1980: God has given America one more chance.

For the libertarians that belive they wouldn't do "it" but don't want to prevent others from doing "it", whatever "it" is, read Romans 1, ver around 19 to the end of the chapter. I won't quote it, but it basically lists several dastardly sins that you or I probably would never do, but the last verse says that if you APROVE of such sins, even if you don't do them yourself, then you are in rebellion and as guilty as the sinner. To say America shouldn't have laws against sin is blasphemy against God's law. Our country got its laws from the Bible, but we have strayed.

I would never commit adultry or have an abortion, but would never impose my beliefs on you = nonsense! This philosophy is why we are slouching toward Gomorah. The slouchers will drag you into the pitt with them.

I don't know what or why you would need to ask in private. I certainly wasn't suggesting that your post was inappropriate. I just don't think it is necessary to even believe in a soul to consider human life sacred.

And as far as when a human life begins it seems clear as crytal to me that it is when one half copy of DNA joins another half copy of DNA creating a whole and viable copy of DNA that has never before and will never again exist. From that moment it has the power to self replicate. A sperm cell cannot divide into two sperm cells or into a two celled sperm. Neither can an egg. Sperm and egg don't even contain the complete DNA of the parent. The moment they combine they become one cell, completely unique and capable of growing. Utterly human in form. Dependant only for nourishment and shelter.

So as far as legal status is concerned the spiritual doctrines of the universe don't have to be unravelled. It's human and it's alive, by objective standards that the law can understand and address. Either all life is sacred or we start to break it down into good lives-bad lives, useful lives-useless lives etc.

...When Texas urges that a fetus is entitled to Fourteenth Amendment protection as a person, it faces a dilemma. Neither in Texas nor in any other State are all abortions prohibited. Despite broad proscription, an exception always exists. The exception contained in Art. 1196, for an abortion procured or attempted by medical advice for the purpose of saving the life of the mother, is typical. But if the fetus is a person who is not to be deprived of life without due process of law, and if the mother's condition is the sole determinant, does not the Texas exception appear to be out of line with the Amendment's command?
There are other inconsistencies between Fourteenth Amendment status and the typical abortion statute. It has already been pointed out, n. 49, supra, that in Texas the woman is not a principal or an accomplice with respect to an abortion upon her. If the fetus is a person, why is the woman not a principal or an accomplice? Further, the penalty for criminal abortion specified by Art. 1195 is significantly less than the maximum penalty for murder prescribed by Art. 1257 of the Texas Penal Code. If the fetus is a person, may the penalties be different?
Cf. the Wisconsin abortion statute, defining "unborn child" to mean "a human being from the time of conception until it is born alive," Wis. Stat. § 940.04 (6) (1969), and the new Connecticut statute, Pub. Act No. 1 (May 1972 special session), declaring it to be the public policy of the State and the legislative intent "to protect and preserve human life from the moment of conception."...

On the merits, the District Court held that the "fundamental right of single women and married persons to choose whether to have children is protected by the Ninth Amendment, through the Fourteenth Amendment," and that the Texas criminal abortion statutes were void on their face because they were both unconstitutionally vague and constituted an overbroad infringement of the plaintiffs' Ninth Amendment rights. The court then held that abstention was warranted with respect to the requests for an injunction. It therefore dismissed the Does' complaint, declared the abortion statutes void, and dismissed the application for injunctive relief.

The 14th:...No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. .

The 9th:The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people

It all seems to hinge on primarily one question: When does life begin?

BTW, the first woman president will be a conservative. She will have to be someone like Ann Coulter. The first black president will not be Jesse Jackson, he or she will be like Justice Thomas or Allen Keyes. If the Demwits decide to run Hillary in ought 4, then they will find out its not the sex of the candidate, but what they believe. If Margret Thatcher could pass the Constitutional requirements, she could be elected Prez. The Democrat party of "inclusion" only includes socialist nitwits who can never get elected. Thats why when Jackson or Hillary looses, we're all just a bunch of bigots. If Liddy Dole wins, well we are just a bunch of idiots. That's why Colin Powell, Thomas, and Rice, aren't black enough to count for anything. The Republicans will vote for character no matter who it is.

I pine for the day I can vote for Ann, whatever post she desired to fill.

"Is forcing someone from killing another person a violation of that great civil right you just mentioned?"

In the context within which I mentioned it, in the balance of rights between the pregnant mother and the fetus...yes.

"Why can't a people be free from drug users if they so please?"

This is an argument for another thread, alas. But here goes anyway...

You are free not to do drugs. You are not free to force others to give up their drug of choice. That is an infringement of their rights with no moral or utilitarian foundation.

"when he could just move to a state where cocaine was legal"

I think this is kind of a moot point in modern federalized America. I would be all for states being able to decide this policy for themselves; at the very least it would return some of the power to the local level rather than in the hands of those that profit from waging war on otherwise law abiding citizens.

But I also think the law ought to be consistent, even at the state level. I cannot think of a single facet of drugs that does not apply in some degree to alcohol or tobacco (disclaimer, I am big fan of these latter two, and do not touch drugs); therefore, what is the law on drugs in your ideal state had better be prepared to be consistent. Myself, I think choice of drug use falls far more into the category of virtue/vice rather than crime; I agree with Montesquieu that coerced virtue is nothing but slavery.

"If drugs are legalized, should I the taxpayer take up the bill for the rehabilitation of a drug addict who figures out that what he is doing is destroying him?"

Don't be ridiculous. There is no way that this derives from what I have stated, ever. Voluntary private charity is the proper domain for this.

HOWEVER, were I am only offered the Devil's choice between imprisonment and rehab, I will choose rehab as a response (for drug use, of course) every time. It is cheaper by far, and there is no way it can be worse to give someone a slim chance of breaking a habit rather than turning them into hardened criminals with a record.
(ONCE AGAIN) I don't think either of these are good. But if I had to choose...

"Should the state let people destroy themselves without intervening? "

Yes. It does so every day, and the discrimination it practices between drug users and alcoholics is nonsense. Moreover, prohibition does not work except to create a burgeoning black market and criminals with funds, not to mention international terrorists and revolutionaries the world round.

With legalization, you have an industry, Latin America has a cash crop that can pull it into the 20th century at last (as its major destabilizing factor--the drug war--is replaced with a major industry), and so on.

Why do other people's vices bother you so much? If you have vices of your own, would you be prepared to sacrifice them for the comfort of others at their bidding? I bet that nearly everyone except the most bland individuals have some character aspect that qould be considered a vice...where do you draw the line? I draw it at where material victims other than the perpetrator can be conclusively proven to exist.

Got dragged into drug legalization, but whatever. I dunno, I just take anti-libertarianism as coming with the territory. I was shocked at first, but now it's just water off a duck's back. Either way, I will always be more comfortable with your average conservative than with most other folks, so FR will always be where it's at for me.

I figure it's a lot like being a Trotskyite in where Leninists are in charge...90% we agree on, but there is that 10% that means Libertarians get the icepick to the back of the neck in the end, so to speak. Hopefully, we can avert that fate or some simulacrum thereof through rational debate, as an ultimately loyal minority rather than an opponent to the conservative cause.

So many things to respond to you in your post. Let me just focus on this statement:

Of course, a legal choice to enslave is the opposite of a legal choice to abort. The modern slaveholders are the anti-abortion zealots who want to maintain pregnant women in bondage until they deliver a baby.

Oh my goodness I hope we don't equate the responsibilities of parenthood with slavery. I have 6 kids and though I sometimes feel like I'm in involuntary servitude, I never would think that that would justify offing my kids. Oh I know that you're only referring to the nine months that kids spend in their mother's womb, but I don't see much of difference. It certainly wouldn't make any difference to the life you snuff out.

But on the slavery issue: Most slaveholders did not feel that their actions were morally wrong. Essentially they're philosophy was that blacks were inferior to whites. They were either savages or children and this gave the slaveholders the right to keep them in bondage. They had taken a morally repugnant position and defended it on the basis of choice. Consider the two following statements:

All men are created equal
Life begins at conception

Both are moral statements and neither can be proven. Are all men or races equal? How do you know? Can you prove it? But we believe this statement to be true, so that by even asking the question, one would be accused of racism. This was not the case 200 years ago, when whites would routinely ask the question and because they could ask the question they would argue that they had the right to choose to be slaveholders.

The zealots in the battle over slavery were the abolitionists who tried to impose that first statement on all people regardless of their moral beliefs - and thank God they won.

You could point out that the statement, "all men are created equal" is mentioned in the Declaration of Independence - and you'd be right. You'd of course find it a few sentences before statement about all men having "a right to life".

One final point. Yes, when a politician says "I believe in a woman's right to choose" we all know what he or she is talking about. However it is telling that the sentence by itself makes no sense and that the "a" word is avoid whenever possible. One might as well say, "I belive in the right to control" and never mention the word "guns". You might want to consider why politicians avoid completing that sentence, especially if you maintain that the right to choose abortion is an entirely reasonable one.

Coulter's point is that one of the Democrats' premier issues is abortion. Not just legal abortion, but legal abortion at any stage during pregnancy, for any age pregnant woman, funded by public money, without any required waiting period, and without any required parental notification, and without any rights for the father.

She said nothing of the kind. Here's what she said:

"Love of abortion is the one irreducible minimum of the Democratic Party. Liberals don’t want to go to war with Saddam Hussein, but they do want to go to war to protect Roe v. Wade."

That's pure hyperbole. I've never heard any Democrats say that they love abortion and I'm not aware of any acts of war committed by any liberals in the name of pro-choice. On the other hand, some people who call themselves conservatives have bombed clinics and killed innocent bystanders in the name of the "pro-life" movement. Nevertheless, it would still be hyperbole for me to say that conservatives want to go to war to prohibit abortion or that the Republicans' "one irreducible minimum" is hatred of women who choose abortion.

But now to your implicit point ... which is that "moral values" should not become part of the political scene.

I never implied that at all. I am a libertarian who believes that libertarian moral values should be incorporated into law. Nevertheless, I do not believe that misrepresentation or hyperbole promotes libertarian values -- nor does the hyperbole of anti-abortion zealots promote their moral values.

Are Abortion and Adultery Equal?

This is a red herring question, since I never equated the two. I was only making the point that someone who thinks adultery should be legal is not necessarily "pro-adultery" any more than a person who thinks abortion should be legal is "pro-abortion".

Why can't people who support abortion's legality say "I'm for abortion remaining legal" instead of substituting the word "choice?"

I'll say that any time. But people are entitled to identify their position in any way that is not a misrepresentation. If I say that I am "pro-choice" with regard to the abortion issue, that is a correct statement, whereas if you or Ann Coulter say that anyone who is "pro-choice" is "pro-abortion", that would be clearly be a misrepresetation (or at the very least an unsupported assumption).

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.