Ann Coulter Blows It Again

You know that I try to restrain myself when it comes to writing about Ann Coulter. I really do. I know you don't believe me, but I really, really do.

But then she writes something so egregiously ignorant and just plain stupid that I can't help myself.

Here is just part of her latest column, on Mike Huckabee:

[Huckabee] responded to my column last week -- pointing out that he is on record supporting the Supreme Court's sodomy-is-a-constitutional-right decision -- by saying that he was relying on the word of a caller to his radio show and didn't know the details of the case. Ironically, that's how most people feel about sodomy: They support it until they hear the details.

First, I'd pay a lot of money to hear how a court opinion finding that sodomy is a constitutional right could be made to sound reasonable. But the caller had the right response when Huckabee asked him, "What's your favorite radio station?" So he seemed like a reliable source.

Second, Huckabee's statement that he agreed with the court's sodomy ruling was made one week after the decision. According to Nexis, in that one week, the sodomy decision had been the cover story on every newspaper in the country, including The New York Times. It was the talk of all the Sunday news programs. It had been denounced by every conservative and Christian group in America -- as well as other random groups of sane individuals having no conservative inclinations whatsoever.

The highest court in the land had found sodomy was a constitutional right! That sort of thing tends to make news. (I was going to say the sodomy ruling got publicity up the wazoo, but this is, after all, Christmas week.)

So this little stretch-marked cornpone is either lying, has a closed head injury, is a complete ignoramus -- or all of the above.

Okay. I know you're dying to find out -- what's the dog that didn't bark this time? Besides Coulter herself, that is (oh, wait a minute -- that dog does bark).

It's not the fact that Coulter calling Huckabee "stretch-marked" is almost certainly a case of the pot calling the kettle black. That would be too easy. Way too easy. It's better than that.

It's not even the fact that Coulter is disparaging sodomy when she herself is a notorious fag-hag. That's not it either.

Are you ready?

Coulter doesn't know the meaning of the word "sodomy."

She can't. You know how I can tell? Because if she did know the meaning of the word, she wouldn't be so disparaging towards the idea of sodomy since she has almost certainly practiced it herself.

Coulter has the erroneous belief, shared by many ignorant people, that sodomy pertains solely to anal intercourse. It does not, as anyone who owns a dictionary can attest. It pertains to any and all sexual contact that is not heterosexual intercourse, including any and all oral/genital contact.

Its nice to know that Coulter knows as much about the definition of sodomy as she does about Darwin -- that is, absolutely nothing.

But that doesn't keep her from shooting her mouth off. So to speak.

Tom Moran

Stand and Deliver

CNN last Wednesday reported a sight that was just a little bizarre.

Senator James Webb (D-VA) came into the Senate chamber, called the Senate to order -- for exactly 11 seconds -- and then promptly ended the session, spending, according to CNN, a total of 57 seconds in the chamber.

Why was this ridiculous charade necessary, do you ask?

Because we have a psychopath in the White House, that's why.

You see, if the senate does not go into recess, then President Bush can't make any recess appointments, such as the one of John Bolton in 2005. If Bush is going to violate the spirit of the rules by sneakily appointing people who couldn't get confirmed while the back of the Senate is (in a manner of speaking) turned, then the Democrats in the Senate won't give him the opportunity. Hence the little charade on Wednesday, which will be repeated until mid-January by such Democratic stalwarts as Ted Kennedy and Chuck Schumer.

Personally I find it a little depressing that we have to go through asinine exercises such as this, but if we have to have this narcissistic lunatic in the White House for another 13 months or so, at least I can be glad that we have enough Democrats in the Senate to keep him from getting away with the kind of bullshit he's been getting away with for the past seven years. This is exactly the kind of thing the Democrats were voted into office to do.

Now if they'd only stand up to him on Iraq...

Tom Moran

2 Girls, 1 Cup = 1 President

Now that Frank Rich has established that, unlike what Hillary Clinton and John McCain would like us to believe, experience is not going to be the primary criterion for choosing the next president of the United States, then what should that criterion be? If, as Rich claims, "Americans are not just willing but eager to roll the dice," how do we know how to gamble on the next leader of the free world?

I have an idea. You knew I would.

I think that all the presidential candidates, both Democratic and Republican, should each be put in a room, and once there they should be shown the infamous "2 Girls 1Cup" video.

If you don't know what that video is, don't ask -- it's the most disgusting thing you will ever see in your life, and you won't watch it if you know what's good for you. Let's just say (and this is being extremely euphemistic) that it depicts two women performing the most disgusting acts imaginable, short of dismemberment and death. It's truly vile.

However, this video has spawned a fascinating mini-trend on You Tube, where young people videotape themselves and each other (and, in one particularly twisted variation, their grandmother) watching the tape for the first (and, one can only hope, last time) to gauge their reactions. College kids in particular love to see what happens when unsuspecting people watch this video.

This is a pretty representative example of the genre:



Seems like a pretty good way to pick a president. Don't you think?

So let's see Hillary Clinton watch "2 Girls, 1 Cup." How will she react? Will she gag? Throw up? Leave the room? I'd love to see how she takes it -- wouldn't you?

What would Rudy Giuliani do? Would he be outraged at this disgusting violation of all that's decent and holy? Or would he simply roll his eyes and say, "Oh, that's nothing -- Judi and I do that all the time!"

(Okay, I tend to doubt that last bit, but let's face it: you never know with Rudy.)

How would Mike Huckabee or Barack Obama react? Would they get incensed or would they be too busy spewing?

I say we show them all the video, one at a time, and then watch their reaction tapes. And then let America vote, just the way they do on "Dancing With the Stars," to determine who should become the next president. It'll be a great way to get young people involved in the electoral process.

And you have to admit, it can't be much worse than the circus we have now.

Tom Moran

Projection 101

You would think that I would get tired of writing about Ann Coulter -- after all, how much fun can it be to pick on the insane? But Miss Coulter's column is the gift that keeps on giving. Just when you think she can't say anything dumber or more inane, she manages to sink even lower into the ooze.

But this week's column is particularly interesting, because without knowing it she has managed to shed a little light into her thought processes and -- dare I say it? -- her psyche.

How does she do that, you ask?

Let me elucidate:

Miss Coulter's column concerns a review by Ronald Radosh of a new book by M. Stanton Evans on Senator Joe McCarthy, a book that Coulter, with her usual restraint, calls (and no, I'm not making this up) "the greatest book since the Bible," which probably means that it's the only book other than the Bible that Miss Coulter has actually read.

But I digress.

Radosh, as Miss Coulter points out, co-wrote a book about the Rosenbergs some years ago, which, in editor logic, makes him a perfect candidate to review a book about McCarthy. Now I must admit that I have read neither Evans' book (although I plan to shortly) nor Radosh's review (which, as far as I know, is not available online).

But it's not the book or the review that is at issue here. It's Miss Coulter's very revealing reaction to the review that is.

The review makes it comically obvious that Radosh didn't so much as glance through the pages of Evans' book. (Please forgive me, Eric Foner!) At least Kelly Ripa skims the summary cards written by her assistants who actually read the books when she interviews an author. Radosh doesn't even manage that.

Why is this revealing? Let's keep going with Miss Coulter's column and the point will be made:

But Radosh is not about to let the first book to render a full and honest historical account of Joe McCarthy ruin his blissful ignorance. Radosh knows less about McCarthy than I know about fly-fishing. He gets cases wrong, sources wrong, hearings wrong. He's been pulling this nonsense for 25 years now. The sole point of his current cliche-ridden ramblings in National Review is to make yet one more special pleading to liberals.

You have no idea how tempted I was to insert "Darwin" for "fly-fishing" in that last paragraph. Because Miss Coulter is accusing Radosh of doing exactly what Coulter herself did in her book Godless -- write about a subject about which she knew absolutely nothing. As I made clear in this very blog, Coulter wrote a book denouncing Darwin when she made it pretty obvious that she had never bothered to read Darwin herself -- and here she is attacking Radosh for arguably doing the same thing.

Projection is a wonderful thing. Don't you think?

Tom Moran

Thoughts of Iowa

The Iowa Caucauses are slightly less than a month away, and it might be time to think a little bit about possible outcomes and what they might mean.

According to the Iowa Poll, Mike Huckabee and Barack Obama are the frontrunners, although the Democratic race looks to be a statistical dead heat. But more revealingly, when Democrats were asked who they would be most disappointed to see the nominee, 27% said Hillary Clinton.

I've said this before but it bears repeating: do we really want to see the presidency passed back and forth like a baton between two families for a period of 28 years? That's what would happen if Hillary Clinton won in 2008 and served two terms. From January 20, 1989 to January 20, 2017, the only people occupying the White House would be named either Clinton or Bush.

I don't know about you, but I'm not crazy about that prospect.

So what does it mean that Obama is, at least marginally, ahead in Iowa? It means two things, it seems to me: 1) Obama is by far the most charismatic Democrat in the race, and 2) Obama represents hope, change and the future. If, as Bill Clinton used to say, elections are about the future, Obama is the obvious choice for Democrats.

Is he my choice? I don't know yet. I would be happy with pretty much anyone except Hillary Clinton. I have nothing against the junior senator from New York, whom I have already voted for twice, but I don't think she's the best choice for the Democratic nominee.

But I wouldn't count her out yet. Iowa, more than anyplace else, is about organization -- you have to physically get your people out on what could be a ball-chillingly cold night and get them to the places where the caucases are going to be held. This leads me to believe that John Edwards, who made a strong showing in Iowa four years ago, might just surprise people a month from now. In fact, I'm not so sure that an Edwards/Obama ticket might not be the best thing all around.

But what about Huckabee? Is Huckabee surging ahead of Giuliani in the Iowa Poll a sign that Iowa Republicans are so convinced that they'll be defeated in 2008 that they'd rather go with a True Believer, even if they think he doesn't have a prayer? Or do they really think Huckabee can beat Clinton or Obama or whoever the Democrats end up nominating?

Personally (and granted this might be wishful thinking on my part), I think the Republicans don't think they can win and are opting for ideologically purity over pragmatism. Maybe they're hoping that an Evangelical Christian is their best hope, given that 40% of Bush's vote in 2004 came from the Religious Right. Or maybe Huckabee is a Hail Mary pass (so to speak) on their parts.

It's hard to say. But given how ridiculously front-loaded this process has become, we should pretty much know in six weeks or so who the prospective nominees are going to be. Because after Iowa and New Hampshire the ballgame's pretty much over.

Tom Moran