Ann Coulter: Party of Adultery and Abortion Takes A Hit

Human Events ^ | 11/8/02 | Ann Coulter

[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.

[antaresequity]

Nothing in that ruling mandated abortion on demand.

Nor did the ruling make it moral...and it is the moral arguement that will eventually win out...Make no mistake I am a conservative...flame me if you want...but making abortion illegal will do little if anything to stop abortion...the morally bankruptcy needs a moral stimulus package...not a law....

Being allowed to show what an abortion is to 9th and 10'th grade girls will do more to curb abortion than a stack of laws that reach the moon...

[oldironsides]

I heard Ms. Coulter speak before she wrote a book. She remains consistent and to the point. While Republican men look for
ways to dance on the head of a pin we watch Ms.Coulter
take the fire and give it right back. I think it is long past time for a Ms. Coulter. I am sick of the left elitists
like Ellen Ratner, Patricia Ireland and others spewing
the liberal mantra without a response. Thank you Ms. Coulter for speaking up.

[.30Carbine]

I don't want to control this person's right to her own body. YOU DO.

What you are in favor of taking away is the individual baby's right to his or her own body. I am not in favor of taking anyone's right to control their own body away from them. I strongly support the baby's right to keep it's body. I also strongly support the woman's right to control her body enough to avoid pregnancy should she choose not to become impregnated. The secret to avoiding pregnancy is a no-brainer. Once pregnant, it is no longer an issue of a woman's right to her body alone. There are now TWO bodies and TWO sets of rights involved, the woman's, and the child's, whether male or female.

Make no mistake, this woman (if she does not want the baby), will be forced to carry this baby (no small feet)...

The baby's FEET, pictured here at various stages of life, formed of cells just like anyone else's entire body is, as you so aptly put it (Bunch of cells in the Mother's womb,) are not so small or unformed or indistinguishable as folks like you would have us believe, are they?

But FEET are not what make a person human. I know lots of veterens that have no feet and yet are still fully as human with the individual right to life as you or I. I also know humans who can not speak, as a baby in his or her mother's womb can not speak. Shall we kill them because they can not speak? How about the mentally incompetant? You say: Mother: Adult, human. Able to make rational decisions. Well, DU newbie disruptor binky, there are lots of humans who are not able to make rational decisions. Unless you advocate killing them all because they are not "human" according to your definition, you had better reexamine your argument.

Examining your argument a little more closely we can see clearly where you draw your moral line: this woman (if she does not want the baby).... In other words, binky, if a human being is not WANTED, and has no ability to defend him or herself from those who do not WANT them around, it is perfectly okay with you to dispose of them for your convenience? If I were to adopt your moral thinking, then, I ought to be able to track you down and annihilate you, tear you limb from limb, in fact, or puncture your head with a sharp instrument, or burn your body with the equivalent of napalm while you writhe in the agony of human death throes, and do so not only with impunity, but with the approval of the US Supreme Court and the Party of Death.

[.30Carbine]

So the obvious question arises.
Who's individual rights should be protected?

Everyone's. Beginning with the Right to Life.

[Tango Whiskey Papa]

"If the Democrats were as bellicose toward Saddam Hussein as they are toward the Republicans, Iraq would be a smoking crater." --R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr.

[.30Carbine]

This isn't about my rights.

This has everything to do with your rights. If murder of babies and old folks is legally sanctioned today, murder of idiots (or any other group of unwanted persons) with legal sanction is just around the corner.

[.30Carbine]

In your own words:
That's why the optimum form of government is a constitutional republic where a document guarantees certain rights regardless of the decision of the mob.

[FITZ]

Then you've probably never met any women whose children ended up in prison, because that's where most of the unwanted offspring end up.

I doubt there's any evidence that those in prison were "unwanted pregnancies", many were welfare babies, their mothers didn't abort them for different reasons ---a nice welfare check being the main one. When women have babies for the welfare, they don't even consider abortion but they also aren't making an effort to raise them. I know of quite a few children who were from unplanned unwanted pregnancies whose mothers don't regret having them, the kids are doing very well and never went to prison.

Anyhow if your argument worked the prison population should be sharply decreasing since 16-18 years after Roe v Wade and we know that isn't the case.

[FITZ]

All the pro-abortion arguments never panned out. The pro-aborts said child abuse would end ---and it's higher than ever, rapes wouldn't be a problem any longer if there was abortion ---women are still traumatized by rape, welfare rolls would decline ---and they're higher than ever, prisons would be empty if there were no unwanted pregnancies ---they're overflowing, women would all be well off and in control of their lives and destinies ---more teenage mothers living on welfare than ever. Not one problem they promised would be solved by abortion has been solved.

[.30Carbine]

The mother's rights must also be considered and in my mind supercedes the rights of cells after conception.

According to your brilliant logic, a mother of a seven-year-old hell-raiser who is spitting in her face, or that of a twenty-three-year-old thug who is terrorizing her with punches, can kill him or her with impunity so long as she has the means at hand?

After all, her child in the womb, her child at seven, and her child at twenty-three are all "cells," the only thing that has changed is their stage of development, and in all three scenarios the child is infringing on the mother's rights.

[Enterprise]

If nothing else, it puts Pelosi in the spotlight, and if there are unusual things in her political past, conservative warrior babes like Coulter will ferret it out and let the rest of us know about it.

[Skooz]

I have been arguing the pro-life position for twenty years. In that time I have noticed that all pro-aborts fall into one of two catagories:

The Delusional: Those who admit that an unborn baby is human but believe the mother has the right to kill it ... just because.

The Willfully Ignorant: Those who do not believe the unborn baby is alive. This, of course, goes against all scientific evidence to the contrary. The Willfully Ignorant position is that the baby magically transforms from an inanimate object into a full-fledged human bieng by passing throguh the birth canal.

[Straight Vermonter]

Moreover, being pro-choice is not the same as being pro-abortion.

Of course no one wants every pregnancy ended with abortion. That would be the "pro-abortion" position. Saying you are pro-choice on abortion is like saying you are pro-choice on shooting neighbors who have their stereo up too loud. It simply is not a choice any of us can be allowed to make.

The whole "choice" thing makes it into an argument over who has the right to choose instead of the correct argument over whether the baby is alive or not.

I assume we can all agree that we do not have the right to choose to kill one another.

[Skooz]

by passing throguh the birth canal. = by passing through the birth canal.

Sorry.

[Dusty Rose]

If you choose to deny life to a new baby on even one occasion, you are choosing to deny life. If you are pro-abortion even once, you are pro-abortion, unless you change your stance. If you allow for a choice for death, even once, you are allowing for a choice for death. "Pro-choice" can never be consistant with "pro-life."