Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Ann Coulter: Party of Adultery and Abortion Takes A Hit
Human Events ^ | 11/8/02 | Ann Coulter

Posted on 11/08/2002 3:06:20 PM PST by Jean S

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.


TOPICS: Editorial; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: anncoulter
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 201-220221-240241-260 ... 301-320 next last
To: FITZ
I'm not a "Coulter Cultist" and maybe Ann does have flaws (who doesn't?) but what liberal woman has less flaws?

What does that prove? Would you admire any conservative woman just because she had fewer flaws than a liberal woman? My criticism of Ann is not that she has more flaws than any liberal women but that she has more obvious flaws than she should have if she wants to help the conservative/Republican cause.

Suppose some young, intelligent woman who is more or less apolitical or moderate reads this column. Will it cause her to gravitate toward Republicans? Highly doubtful.

221 posted on 11/09/2002 2:57:26 AM PST by ravinson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 195 | View Replies]

To: A.J.Armitage
And as for zealotry, you're an anarchist who believes that children are the property of their parents.

No, I'm a responsible libertarian (hopefully not an overly zealous one) who acknowledges the well established fact of life that children are the product of their parents (as well as God/the elements), not a pawn of the government.

222 posted on 11/09/2002 3:03:33 AM PST by ravinson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 197 | View Replies]

To: A.J.Armitage
Choice is a code word for legalized baby-killing, and you know it.

Only in your megawarped dictionary.

223 posted on 11/09/2002 3:05:20 AM PST by ravinson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 201 | View Replies]

Comment #224 Removed by Moderator

To: A.J.Armitage
But he never said human life is just DNA, merely that DNA defines membership in the species, which is a simple biological statement of fact.

jwalsh07 was indeed asserting that DNA alone defines human life. That's why he stated "You've got to be kidding. Here's a proof for you. Examine the DNA..." in response to my assertion that anti-abortion people could not prove that abortion is the taking of a "human" life.

225 posted on 11/09/2002 3:13:58 AM PST by ravinson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 203 | View Replies]

To: MHGinTN
In point of fact, it ought to be required of the one preparing to do an abortion to prove there is not an individual human about to be terminated

Then you must also believe that any man and woman who choose not to have sex with each other should be required to prove that by making that choice they are not terminating the life of an individual human. And you must also believe that any woman who has a miscarriage must have to prove that she did not do anything to cause the death of an individual human. And you must also believe that anyone preparing to do anything at all must have to prove that they will not thereby set off a chain of events which may result in the death of another individual human. Otherwise you are being inconsistent.

Why is it that the abortionist is not required to prove the 'thing' he/she is about to assault is NOT ALIVE?.

If an abortionist (or anyone else) is charged with assault/murder, they would only be required to prove that there is a reasonable doubt as to whether that fetus was (a) a human being, (b) harmed/killed unlawfully, or (c) harmed/killed intentionally, in order to be acquitted. Even in the absence of Roe v. Wade, all reasonable jurors would have a reasonable doubt as to whether a recently formed fetus was a human being. That is why an early term abortion is only prosecutable as a practical matter if abortion is specifically criminalized.

You seem intent on forcing people to prove their innocence of wrongdoing rather than requiring prosecutors to prove their guilt. For obvious reasons, your approach is very popular with totalitarian governments.

226 posted on 11/09/2002 3:38:41 AM PST by ravinson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 204 | View Replies]

To: Pistias
What exactly sets them [feteses] apart from you?

Fetuses can't be proven to have human essence (aka "souls" or "spirits").

why should we err on the side of killing the little being before it can decide that for itself?

I'm not proposing that anyone should err on any side, I'm just suggesting that you cannot prove that an abortion is an error, whereas the initiation of force against a human being without justification is always a provable error.

227 posted on 11/09/2002 3:43:56 AM PST by ravinson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 205 | View Replies]

To: John Lenin
I have heard this debate for 20 years and to rationalize death is totally rediculous.

Then you must believe that all women who don't try to get pregnant as often as possible cause irrational death to their egg cells.

228 posted on 11/09/2002 3:46:53 AM PST by ravinson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 210 | View Replies]

To: binky2000
Your position is well stated. Welcome to FreeRepublic!
229 posted on 11/09/2002 3:50:24 AM PST by ravinson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 218 | View Replies]

To: ravinson
Fetuses can't be proven to have human essence (aka "souls" or "spirits").

Neither can you. Guess that means I can stick a pair of scissors in the back of your head and suck your brains out with a vacuum cleaner. If I choose to, that is.

230 posted on 11/09/2002 4:07:35 AM PST by .30Carbine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 227 | View Replies]

To: binky2000
What I do like is individual rights. Call me pro-rights. What I don't like is government control of the individual.

Explain to me how the individual rights of the baby are protected in abortion. Explain to me how the decision in Roe v. Wade was NOT government control of the individual baby, i.e., finding that a human child in the womb has no rights and therefore government finds no reason why said baby can not be murdered at the whim of the mother.

If you were really so much in favor of Individual Human Rights you would be doing everything in your power to protect and defend the rights of the baby who can not speak out to protect and defend its own.

What you ought to say, if you had any honesty, is that you are for YOUR Individual Human Rights, and so long as you have YOURS everyone else can get f@cked.

231 posted on 11/09/2002 4:19:16 AM PST by .30Carbine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 218 | View Replies]

To: ravinson
...you cannot prove that an abortion is an error, whereas the initiation of force against a human being without justification is always a provable error.

Pictures of abortion violence
WARNING!
Do NOT, NOT, NOT go to the above link
if you do NOT want to see dismembered babies!
(I refrain from posting the pictures here out of respect for those who prefer not to see them.)

You, ravinson, ought to take a look, however, then come back and tell me that abortion is not the "initiation of force against a human being."

232 posted on 11/09/2002 4:29:00 AM PST by .30Carbine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 227 | View Replies]

To: ravinson
Your post is filled with so many specious and easily refutable points it is difficult to know where to begin. You failed to address a single point I made. You essentially just said "Uh UUuuhhhh....."

If life begins not at conception, when does life begin?


Looks human to me.

Science

The average length of a human pregnancy is 266 days or 38 weeks. Obstetricians normally use a figure of 40 weeks, but this is actually the time between the first day of the last menstrual period and childbirth. On average, the first day of the last menstrual period occurs 2 weeks before fertilization.

Following are facts about human development. They are organized according to the number of weeks since fertilization. Weeks after the first day of the last menstrual period (LMP) are shown in parentheses.

3 Weeks after Fertilization (5 weeks after LMP)
The eyes and spinal cord are visible and the developing brain has two lobes.

At this stage, according to the Supreme Court rulings in "Roe vs. Wade" and "Planned Parenthood vs. Casey," a pregnant woman can abort at will.

4 Weeks after Fertilization (6 weeks after LMP)

The heart is beating. The portion of the brain associated with consciousness (the cerebrum) and internal organs such as the lungs are beginning to develop and can be identified.

7 Weeks after Fertilization (9 weeks after LMP)

Muscles and nerves begin working together. When the upper lip is tickled, the arms move backwards. The portion of the brain associated with consciousness (the cerebrum) has divided into hemispheres.

9 Weeks after Fertilization (11 weeks after LMP)

More than 90% of the body structures found in a full-grown human are present. The medical classification changes from an embryo to a fetus. This dividing line was chosen by embryologists because from this point forward, most development involves growth in existing body structures instead of the formation of new ones. The preborn human moves body parts without any outside stimulation.

10 Weeks after Fertilization (12 weeks after LMP)

All parts of the brain and spinal cord are formed. The heart pumps blood to every part of the body. The whole body is sensitive to touch except for portions of the head. The preborn human makes facial expressions.

At this stage, according to the Supreme Court rulings in "Roe vs. Wade" and "Planned Parenthood vs. Casey," a pregnant woman can abort at will.

11 Weeks after Fertilization (13 weeks after LMP):

12 Weeks after Fertilization (14 weeks after LMP)

Electrical signals from the nervous system are measurable. After an abortion, efforts to suckle will sometimes be observed.

14 Weeks after Fertilization (16 weeks after LMP)

The premature human makes coordinated movements of the arms and legs.

18 Weeks after Fertilization (20 weeks after LMP)

The portion of the brain responsible for functions such as reasoning and memory (the cerebral cortex), has the same number of nerve cells as a full-grown adult.

At this stage, according to the Supreme Court rulings in "Roe vs. Wade" and "Planned Parenthood vs. Casey," a pregnant woman can abort at will.

24 Weeks after Fertilization (26 weeks after LMP)

Taste buds are functional. The preborn human will swallow more amniotic fluid if a sweetener is added to it. The grip is strong enough to hold onto an object that is moving up and down. If born and given specialized care, the survival rate is more than 80%.

At this stage, according to the Supreme Court's rulings in "Roe vs. Wade" and "Doe vs. Bolton," a pregnant woman can abort to preserve her health. One example from Roe vs. Wade of what may be considered harmful to a mother's health is the "stigma of unwed motherhood."

28 Weeks after Fertilization (30 weeks after LMP)

If born and given specialized care, the survival rate is more than 95%.

Premature infants born at this time are more sensitive to pain than infants who are born at 38 weeks, and infants who are born at 38 weeks are more sensitive to pain than older infants (3 -12 months old.)

32 Weeks after Fertilization (34 weeks after LMP):
(Premature infant – 3 days after birth)

38 Weeks after Fertilization (40 weeks after LMP)

Average point in time when humans are born. At birth, the medical classification changes from a fetus to a neonate. At any point prior to birth, according to the Supreme Court's rulings in "Roe vs. Wade" and "Doe vs. Bolton," a pregnant woman can abort to preserve her health. One example from Roe vs. Wade of what may be considered harmful to a mother's health is the work of caring for a child.

But, like all other Pro-Abort Zealouts you will just ignore facts and science because they disagree with you.

Abortion is the act of killing a baby. Deal with it it.

233 posted on 11/09/2002 5:37:18 AM PST by Skooz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 213 | View Replies]

To: binky2000
When's the last time someone killed a baby on the Friday Night Smackdown?

Your "point" is specious and irrelevent to the subject.

I guess the people who lived in the town of Dachau would be considered "pro-concentration camp" because it was none of their business.

234 posted on 11/09/2002 5:41:27 AM PST by Skooz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 218 | View Replies]

Comment #235 Removed by Moderator

Comment #236 Removed by Moderator

Comment #237 Removed by Moderator

Comment #238 Removed by Moderator

Comment #239 Removed by Moderator

Comment #240 Removed by Moderator


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 201-220221-240241-260 ... 301-320 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson