Coultergeist Sighting in Yorba Linda Tonight

That’s right, Ann Coulter is coming to town for a dinner and speech tonight at the Richard M. Nixon Library in Yorba Linda.  Tickets are pretty pricey and with the rise of the Tea Baggers, the bloom is off of Coulter’s rose.  To be honest, Tea Partiers make Coulter look almost reasonable by some standards.

The event is nearly sold out which speaks volumes about the conservative mindset in Orange County. But fear not fellow liberals; seats are still available for a December 6 dinner “honoring” former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld.  And the Big Dick himself, former VP Dick Cheney is scheduled to attend (tickets start at $500).  Womder if there’s a new exhibit opening, “From Watergate to Waterboarding….”

But least we forget that Coulter is nuts, here are some of her greatest hits:

25) “The New York Times review blamed (Kitty) Kelley’s gossip mongering on “a cultural climate in which gossip and innuendo thrive on the Internet.” Kelley has been writing these books for decades, so apparently, like the Texas Air National Guard, Kelley was on the Internet – and being influenced by it – back in the ’70s. As I remember it, for the past few years it has been the Internet that keeps dissecting and discrediting the gossip and innuendo that the major media put out.”

24) “Liberals become indignant when you question their patriotism, but simultaneously work overtime to give terrorists a cushion for the next attack and laugh at dumb Americans who love their country and hate the enemy.”

23) “The leaders of the modern Democratic Party, Hannity says, have made excuses for evil for so long that they cannot recognize evil anymore. The closest thing to it in their vocabulary would be “someone who wears fur.” And of course, they recognize evil in the person of “George W. Bush,” whom they see as the very essence of evil. In fact, Bush may be the only force of evil in the world liberals haven’t wanted to appease.”

22) “Reagan took an approach to the Cold War dramatically different from any other US President. To wit, he thought we should win. This was a fresh concept. At the time, it was widely ridiculed as a dangerous alteration of US policy. Only after it worked was Reagan’s dangerous foreign policy recast as merely a continuation of the policies of his predecessors.”

21) “While the form of treachery varies slightly from case to case, liberals always manage to take the position that most undermines American security.”

20) “Even if corners were cut, (Iran-Contra) was a brilliant scheme. There is no possibility that anyone in any Democratic administration would have gone to such lengths to fund anti-Communist forces. When Democrats scheme from the White House, it’s to cover up the President’s affair with an intern. When Republicans scheme, it’s to support embattled anti-Communist freedom fighters sold out by the Democrats.”

19) “Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld said any assumption that the US would not use force against North Korea would be a mistake. Such bellicosity frightens liberals. The left’s reaction to nutty despots is: he might hit me, so I’ll be nice. Rumsfeld’s idea is: He’ll hit me? Maybe I’ll hit him. The beauty of that approach cannot be denied.”

18) “The reason any conservative’s failing is always major news is that it allows liberals to engage in their very favorite taunt: Hypocrisy! Hypocrisy is the only sin that really inflames them. Inasmuch as liberals have no morals, they can sit back and criticize other people for failing to meet the standards that liberals simply renounce. It’s an intriguing strategy. By openly admitting to being philanderers, draft dodgers, liars, weasels and cowards, liberals avoid ever being hypocrites.”

17) “For fifty years, America’s foreign policy failures have not been problems of “national dialogue” or “preventative” action or the national psyche. There is one simple problem: Democrats can’t handle foreign policy. You could almost forgive the Democrats for their spectacular record of failure in foreign policy. But then they have the audacity to cite their own derelict handling of the military to argue that it is always a fool’s errand to deploy troops in defense of the nation. Remember Vietnam!”

16) “(Sheryl) Crow explained that the ‘best way to solve problems is to not have enemies.’ War solves that problem too: We won’t have any enemies because we’re going to kill them. Crow warned of ‘huge karmic retributions that will follow.’ She seemed not to understand that America going to war is huge karmic retribution. They killed three thousand Americans and now they’re going to die.”

15) “Liberals said Reagan was dangerous and his rhetoric scary. They ridiculed him as an idiot for believing the Soviet Union could be toppled. They opposed him on every front — strengthening the military, aiding and arming anti-Communist rebels around the world, invading Grenada, preparing to win a nuclear war, building a nuclear shield, and waging a spiritual crusade against Soviet totalitarianism. Reagan said the Soviet Union was an evil empire and we would prevail. He called the ball, the shot, and the pocket, and he won the game. But now we’re supposed to believe he was lucky. Liberals lie about Reagan’s victory because when Reagan won the Cold War, he proved them wrong on everything they had done and said throughout the Cold War.”

14) “‘Stupid’ means one thing: “threatening to the interests of the Democratic Party.” The more Conservative the Republican, the more vicious and hysterical the attacks on his intelligence will be.”

13) “(Mel) Gibson didn’t insert Jews into (“The Passion of the Christ”) for some Machiavellian, racist reason. Christ was a Jew crucified by Romans at the request of other Jews in Jerusalem. I suppose if Gibson had moved the story to suburban Cleveland and portrayed Republican logging executives crucifying Christ, the left would calm down. But it simply didn’t happen that way.”

12) “Democrats always assure us that deterrence will work, but when the time comes to deter, they’re against it.”

11) “The Great Satan is wearying of this reverse hegemony, in which little pipsqueak nations try to impose their pipsqueak values on us. Aren’t we the ones who should be arrogantly oppressing countries that unaccountably do not have the death penalty?”

10) “Looking at the line-up of speakers at the (Democratic National) Convention, I have developed the 7-11 challenge: I will quit making fun of, for example, Dennis Kucinich, if he can prove he can run a 7-11 properly for 8 hours. We’ll even let him have an hour or so of preparation before we open up. Within 8 hours, the money will be gone, the store will be empty, and he’ll be explaining how three 11-year olds came in and asked for the money and he gave it to them.”

9) “Much of the left’s hate speech bears greater similarity to a psychological disorder than to standard political discourse. The hatred is blinding, producing logical contradictions that would be impossible to sustain were it not for the central element faith plays in the left’s new religion. The basic tenet of their faith is this: Maybe they were wrong on facts and policies, but they are good and conservatives are evil. You almost want to give it to them. It’s all they have left.”

8) “No matter what the evidence, liberals insist that only their tender ministrations are capable of calming murderous dictators. Negotiation and engagement are said to “work” because, after Democrats spend years dillydallying with lunatic despots who threaten America, eventually a Republican president comes in and threatens aggressive military action. In a fascinating fifty-year pattern — completely indiscernible to liberals — murderous despots succumb to “engagement” shortly after a Republican president threatens to bomb them. This allows liberals to hail years of impotent negotiation and engagement as a foreign policy ‘win’.”

7) “Gore said foreigners are not worried about ‘what the terrorist networks are going to do, but about what we’re going to do.’ Good. They should be worried. They hate us? We hate them. Americans don’t want to make Islamic fanatics love us. We want to make them die. There’s nothing like horrendous physical pain to quell anger. Japanese Kamikazes pilots hated us once, too. A couple of well-aimed nuclear weapons got their attention. Now they are gentle little lambs.”

6) “If it were true that conservatives were racist, sexist, homophobic, fascist, stupid, inflexible, angry, and self-righteous, shouldn’t their arguments be easy to deconstruct? Someone who is making a point out of anger, ideology, inflexibility, or resentment would presumably construct a flimsy argument. So why can’t the argument itself be dismembered rather than the speaker’s personal style or hidden motives? Why the evasions?”

5) “Hearing politicians tell us “we” can’t “afford” a tax cut is like listening to a glutton tell you he can’t “afford” a diet. In no other context do people talk about “paying for” money they don’t have. I can’t pay for your refusal to give me money because I need a yacht.”

4) “Liberals hate religion because politics is a religion substitute for liberals and they can’t stand the competition.”

3) “Not exactly smashing stereotypes of liberals as mincing pantywaists, the left’s entire contribution to the war effort thus far has been to whine.”

2) “The common wisdom holds that “both parties” have to appeal to the extremes during the primary and then move to the center for the general election. To the contrary, both parties run for office as conservatives. Once they have fooled the voters and are safely in office, Republicans sometimes double-cross the voters. Democrats always do.”

1) “In the corporeal world, international law is whatever the United States and Great Britain say it is.”

  19 comments for “Coultergeist Sighting in Yorba Linda Tonight

  1. junior
    November 15, 2010 at 9:04 pm

    “Reagan took an approach to the Cold War dramatically different from any other US President. To wit, he thought we should win. This was a fresh concept. At the time, it was widely ridiculed as a dangerous alteration of US policy. Only after it worked was Reagan’s dangerous foreign policy recast as merely a continuation of the policies of his predecessors.”

    That is the truth Dan – what is wrong or incorrect about that statement? I would add that liberals heap credit on Gorby for ending the Cold War – all he did was capitulate.

    • Steve
      November 16, 2010 at 11:27 am

      I’ll take this one Dan…

      Here’s what’s wrong or incorrect about that statement;

      “To wit, he thought we should win”

      Right. So what Coulter is suggesting is that those dastardly libruls wanted to LOSE the Cold War. That’s right…libruls wanted to lose the Cold War, be taken over by the Soviet Union, and convert to Communism.

      No, what Coulter does, as she so often does, is turn a difference in APPROACH to achieving a goal into having completely different goals. She creates a lie.

      If you can’t see that, Junior, well, you’re blind.

      • November 16, 2010 at 1:48 pm

        Thanks Steve. And for the record, George H.W. Bush was president when the Cold War ended. The Soviets capitulated because they could no longer afford to match the massive defense spending instituted by the Reagan administration. And wouldn’t Reagan have been thrown under the bus by the tea partiers for not being conservative enough? And for his massive spending and deficits?

      • junior
        November 16, 2010 at 6:33 pm

        No, she is not suggesting that liberals wanted to lose the Cold War. She is saying that libs were not committed to winning. Libs were too easy to “get along and go along.” with the Ruskies to actually win.

        • Steve
          November 16, 2010 at 8:10 pm

          That, my friend, is known as a distinction without a difference.

        • Steve
          November 16, 2010 at 8:15 pm

          Additionally, the antithesis of “he thought we should win” isn’t “I’m not committed to winning”…it’s “I don’t think we should win.

          That’s what she’s suggesting…try to sugarcoat it all you want.

          • junior
            November 16, 2010 at 8:50 pm

            Let me say it then – Libs were not committed to winning. Libs were too easy to “get along and go along” with the Ruskies to actually win.

            Now as to Ann – many on the extreme left did not want the good guys to win. You can see it even today when they say that they want to “dismantle capialism.”

            • Steve
              November 17, 2010 at 9:22 am

              Ah, the “extreme” left.

              Tell me this…what percentage of Americans want to “dismantle capitalism”. Give me a figure.

              You can’t. Because all you’re doing is highlighting some wacko who’s beyond liberal. And I could play that game too and highlight some wacko on the right who’s beyond conservative.

              These people are few and far between. They’re out there, but they’re not a threat to our way of life. They’re anomalies.

              Get a grip, get some balance, and get some perspective. Your arguments might carry more weight if you do.

  2. RHackett
    November 16, 2010 at 6:01 pm

    Conservatives now engage in hagiography when it comes to Reagan. I remember him as Governor passing the largest tax hike (by percent) in the state’s history.

    Tell that to conservatives and they’ll scream it’s liberal propaganda.

    The person they want to remember is completely different than the actual person who governed.

  3. Ltpar
    November 16, 2010 at 8:38 pm

    Dan, liberals are liberals and conservatives are conservatives and never the twain shall meet. In a democracy, that is the way is is supposed to be and keeps both sides on their toes. Frankly, I wouldn’t pay to hear any political speaker, and while agreeing with some of Ann Coulter’s rhetoric, she like other high profile people is nothing but an entertainer. I will say one thing in a lighter note, Ann Coulter is sure easier on the eyes, than Nancy Pelosi.

    • junior
      November 16, 2010 at 9:00 pm


    • Steve
      November 17, 2010 at 9:03 am

      “Dan, liberals are liberals and conservatives are conservatives and never the twain shall meet.”

      That is such an overly-simplistic, over-generalized statement that I hardly know where to begin. Are you telling me that a Blue Dog Democrat is the same as a Dennis Kucinich Democrat? Are you telling me that an Olympia Snowe Republican is the same as a Jesse Helms Republican? Are you telling me there’s an unbridgeable gulf between a Blue Dog Dem and an Olympia Snowe Republican?

      Get a clue dude. The world is far more nuanced and complicated than you think. I know that scares you, but that’s just the way it is.

      • junior
        November 17, 2010 at 5:06 pm


        I don’t mean to burst your bubble – well maybe I do ….

        Here is a chart that shows that Kucinich voted 79% with Pelosi vs. 100% for good ole Blue Dog dem Loretta Sanchez who voted 100% with Pelosi on all of the major issues.

        Consider your bubble burst buddy – not much “nuance” there.

        Loretta Sanchez is a Blue Dog in name only – that is a fact. Get a clue dude, Loretta is full of sh*t.

        • Steve
          November 17, 2010 at 5:38 pm

          Where did I say that Loretta is truly a Blue Dog? Can you point that out to me?

          As far as Kucinich goes, voting only 79% of the time with the leader of your house of Congress, a woman who is generally thought of as the second coming of Karl Marx, is actually quite a large margin. That’s a big difference, in political terms.

          Bubble still not burst…buddy.

          • junior
            November 17, 2010 at 5:59 pm

            Steve said: “Where did I say that Loretta is truly a Blue Dog? Can you point that out to me?”

            Steve – You indicated “Blue Dog” (meaning any Blue Dog) Loretta calls herself a Blue Dog adnauseum – she is listed as a Blue Dog.

            Talk about a distinction without a difference – I think that you just defined the term. Can you say “obfuscation”?

            • Steve
              November 17, 2010 at 8:52 pm

              Oh really, I meant ANY Blue Dog? Well thank you for telling me what I meant.

              But for sake of argument, let’s assume that you’re right about Loretta Sanchez and that she’s not a true Blue Dog. You believe that you’re right about that, don’t you?

              If that’s the case, then I didn’t mean her…I meant a Blue Dog…a real one. Get it?

              But you get the point…you just want to veer the discussion in a different direction.

      • Ltpar
        November 18, 2010 at 12:57 pm

        Hey dude yourself. Quit pretending to be an intellectual and a big thinker, we aren’t buying your ruse. You are just another sore looser whose 15 seconds of fame and fortune has come and gone like a thief in the night. That’s the fact of the real world, I live in and rest assured it does not scare me. Keep drinking the Obama kool aid dude, you still have two years left before relegation back to oblivion. Is that nuanced enough for you?

  4. junior
    November 17, 2010 at 8:56 pm


    Thank you for agreeing with me that Loretta is full of sh*t.

  5. junior
    November 19, 2010 at 6:15 am

    Dan said: “.. Tea Partiers make Coulter look almost reasonable by some standards.”

    Yeah Dan’s standards, to wit:
    Cherry picking the one crazy loon (probably a dem plant) in a crowd of 20,000 Tea Partiers peacefully exercising their First Amendment rights.

Comments are closed.