I’ve never much cared for Ann Coulter, but her column today shreds whatever remaining credibility she had. Her attacks on Santorum in particular reek of anti-Catholicism. Thankfully Jay Anderson has fisked her so that I don’t have to (Jay’s comments in red).
… Santorum is not as conservative as his social-issues credentials suggest. He is more of a Catholic than a conservative [ED: Apparently, being “more of a Catholic” – i.e. taking one’s faith seriously – is supposed to be a bad thing.], which means he’s good on 60 percent of the issues[ED.: Got that? Being Catholic automatically means being “wrong”on 40% of the issues in the mind of Coulter. At least she’s honest about her bigotry.], but bad on others, such as big government social programs. He’d be Ted Kennedy if he didn’t believe in God. [ED.: Yeah, that Santorum is JUST LIKE Ted Kennedy. Wait. What could the conservative Santorum POSSIBLY have in common with the uber-liberal late Ted Kennedy? Oh yeah. That whole Catholicism thingy – being beholden to the Pope, or something like that. Any doubts about how Coulter feels about Catholics now?]
Santorum may not be a big spender as far as professional politicians go [ED.: Or, for that matter, as far as your big-government, health-care mandating RINO boy, Dullard Flip Rino, goes.], but he is still a professional politician. In 2005, one of his former aides described him as “a Catholic missionary who happens to be in the Senate.” [ED.: I, for one, think the Senate could use a few more such statesmen who are committed to renewing our culture, promoting virtue and traditional family values, and prizing service to others in the common good. Apparently, these things have no place in the selfishly individualistic, objectivist AynRandland that Coulter envisions for our society.]
The Catholic missionary was fantastic on issues like partial-birth abortion, but more like a Catholic bishop [ED.: Ah, there we go. What anti-Catholic screed would be complete without a few shots at the hierarchy in the form of Bishop-bashing?] in his support for No Child Left Behind, the Medicare drug entitlement program (now costing taxpayers more than $60 billion a year), and a highway bill with a Christmas tree of earmarks, including the famous “bridge to nowhere.” [ED.: I was unaware that the Bishops had taken a formal position in support of any of these measures. Not sure they’ve really taken much of an interest in Alaska road projects, for example. But why let that get in the way of slapping the Bishops around?]
More at the link.
If I may add, her attacks on Rick Perry are just as poorly thought out.
Rick Perry is not electable as president for three reasons: First, he seems too much like Bush;
Only to dimwitted individuals who can’t look past the fact that he’s from Texas and speaks with a midwest Texas twang.
second, he gave illegal immigrants in-state tuition;
Really? I mean really? This is supposed to be a disqualifying position? Also, he didn’t just give them in-state tuition discounts – the communist bastion known as the Texas legislature, by an overwhelming majority, did. Meanwhile, Coulter supports the guy who gave Barack Obama the model for his health care overhaul.
But yeah, Perry signing the in-state tuition discount for illegals is completely disqualifying.
and, third, uh, oops … I can’t remember the third reason.
Oh! Oh! Get it? It’s because Perry had that brain freeze at the debate. That’s a completely original joke from Ann Coulter that hasn’t been made a couple of hundred times already by people with far more wit.
Ten years ago National Review gave Coulter the boot for her post-9/11 column. With such slipshod reasoning as displayed here, I think they’d be ready to welcome her back with open arms.
[…] Coulter Shreds Any Remaining Credibility – Paul Zummo, The American Catholic […]
Ann Coulter… zero credit.
She has a problem with Santorum’s vote on Medicare, but she makes no mention of Romneycare?! That’s a burden on Massachusetts and the people of Massachusetts. It’s medicare part D and then some.
She hits Newt for sitting on the couch with Pelosi for a TV commercial, but no mention of liberal legislation passed by Romney as governor. Which is more detrimental to the citizen, an environmental TV ad or liberal legislation?
And Rick Perry… again with the stupid, vapid in-state tuition charge. (You’d swear Texas is the most liberal state in the union the way these ill-informed pundits speak.) Dear Ann, how can you possibly have a problem with in state tuition in Texas when Romney pushed free, comprehensive health care for illegal immigrants?!
I am glad Ann and McCain have found common ground. So much to talk about at the next GOP cocktail party!
In regards to her Catholic disrespect, it speaks for itself. Too bad she didn’t give Catholics the level of respect she gives the Log Cabin Republicans.
Ann Coulter’s act got old very, very long ago. I guess she must have forgotten about what she said in regard to Romney in February of last year:
I like Ann. I usually disagree with her but I enjoy listening to her take.
Her bit about Santorum acting like a Catholic bishop is something you’d hear on Republican-leaning conservative Catholic blogs.
She also makes a legitimate point. Had Santorum been in the House in 2009, can you say with certainty that he wouldn’t have voted with Joseph Cao in favor of ObamaCare the first time around? I don’t think he would have but the fact that I’m not certain says something about Santorum.
I do think the fiscal conservatives in the GOP would keep any Republican president in check though so that’s not a big issue for me. Apart from his electability and possible lack of leadership ability, what concerns me most about him is his overly aggressive foreign policy and his deviation from free-market economics.
“Her bit about Santorum acting like a Catholic bishop is something you’d hear on Republican-leaning conservative Catholic blogs.”
Rubbish RR. This is the Republican-leaning conservative Catholic blog and you would never see any of our contributors writing anything like that.
“can you say with certainty that he wouldn’t have voted with Joseph Cao in favor of ObamaCare the first time around? ”
I can say that with complete certainty.
Coulter’s article offends me more as a reader than as a Catholic. She just doesn’t back anything up. It reads like she wrote it in five minutes. I know she often uses hyperbole to make her points – way too often, for my tastes – but in this article she isn’t even making specific charges. (Actually, the more I think about this column, the more it offends me as a Catholic. But I’m ok with being offended as long as you back it up.)
“what concerns me most about him is his overly aggressive foreign policy and his deviation from free-market economics”
Coulter implies the same thing about his economics, but I just don’t see that in his record, except for the Medicare expansion. I have a real problem with that vote, but frankly a lot of high-caliber people disappointed me that day.
Pinky, as I said I don’t mind the drunken sailor record so much because any president will be restrained by the fiscal conservatives in Congress. But Santorum wants to tinker with the economy. Republicans rightly criticize Obama for “picking winners and losers” pointing to Solyndra. Santorum wants to do the same. As did Newt. Newt supported ethanol subsidies. Santorum supports manufacturing tax breaks. And if you follow their reasoning, there’s no reason why they would stop there. Their ideological frameworks don’t prevent “picking winners and losers.” David Brooks says we elect thought processes. I’m mostly with Santorum on his social issues thought process, i.e., orthodox Catholicism. I’m just realizing this now but the person whose foreign policy thought process most agrees with mine is Secretary Clinton’s. On the proper role of the federal government, I’m with Rick Perry. On economics, I’m with Romney. Santorum is right to worry about economic mobility but special tax breaks isn’t the solution I’m looking for. Nor is hiring students as janitors.
Years ago, I read one of her attack liberals books. I liked it and found it readable. I find most contemporary writers to be torturers.
Ann and I are “bomb-throwers” more adept at outraging than communicating. I wonder if she does it because she thinks her readers wouldn’t get it. Or, more likely, she actually does not “have the goods.”
Her attacks on my two Rick’s are short on facts and evidence. Liberals are so much easier to hit up. They never have facts.
Or, was I less critical in the earlier readings?
Anyhow, men are from Mars.
Women are from Bedlam.
One thing about Ann that has always bothered me is that she’s just a complainer. I don’t really recall her offering solutions to any problems, just complaints that person X isn’t doing enough, person Z is crazy, and person Y had the right idea but did it wrong. I’ve found myself liking Charles Krauthammer more and more as the days go by, and I’m curious to see his take on the Iowa poll (I haven’t seen anything post-caucus, only his pre-caucus prediction).
“This is the Republican-leaning conservative Catholic blog …” (emphasis added)
Love it. Reminds me of when Limbaugh responds to generic condemnations of “talk radio” by saying “Let’s get one thing straight – I AM talk radio.”
Too many people take Ann way too seriously. She will continue to say the most provocative and outlandish comments that are convenient at the time usually with a twisted right-wing spin.
Ann Coulter = The Lady Gaga of the Republican Party.
Ann Coulter is my least favorite conservative and always has been, but a couple of years ago (I think) I happened to read a column of hers that was a fairly nice tribute to her then-recently deceased father… and it referred to him being Catholic. Sounds to me like she MAY be yet another of those “recovering Catholic” types. Still, she at least gives the Church credit for being right on more issues than not.
Santorum wants to do the same. As did Newt. Newt supported ethanol subsidies. Santorum supports manufacturing tax breaks
An inadvisable idea, but it is a passably transparent rule. The U.S. Department of Energy had by 30 Sept. 2010 acquired a $50 bn loan portfolio. Discretionary decisions have to be made concerning each extension of credit. You have opportunities to make stupid allocation decisions and sluice income to the well connected you simply do not have when you merely declare the profits of manufacturing tax exempt.
Kyle,
Krauthammer’s article today is full of glowing praise for Santorum, which actually mildly surprises me.
Santorum is at 24% today in a Rasmussen poll in South Carolina, just three points behind Romney:
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/sc-poll-romney-27-santorum-24-gingrich-18_616105.html
Note Gingrich at 18%. Once Gingrich pulls out, and hopefully throws his support to Santorum, Romney is going to be in very deep trouble and the GOP establishment will be in full melt down mode. Most of them simply do not realize that Santorum has an ever improving chance to win this. He raised over two million dollars in the last two days and his state polling is taking off. Romney is deeply unpopular with the base of the party and the effort by Republican elites to push him to victory is bitterly resented by the rank and file. Santorum gives them a chance to say a loud No!!! to all of this and Republicans around the country are grabbing hold of this opportunity.
Karl Rove and now Ann Coulter are bending over backwards to ensure the Romney gets the nomination. I wonder if it ever dawned on them why Romney can’t get past 25% in any poll? Could it be the anti-Romney vote? With Bachmann out and the novelty of the racist and 9/11 Truther Ron Paul wears out, Santorum will get another bump as well.
I remember in mid-December when CK was asked if Newt was peaking at the right time, if it was too early. He said “No. He’s peaking at the perfect time.” Oops. Can’t get them all right.
And this is the part that worries me…
“He is no austere limited-government constitutionalist. He participated in George W. Bush’s “compassionate conservatism,” ”
Ugh. The fed is overdue for a serious downsize. The private sector has; it’s the fed’s turn.
Point of information (correct me if I’m wrong): Our Rick’s proposal is to cut corporate tax rates for all corporations. The rate reductions for all non-manufacturing corporations is 50%, for all manufacturing it’s 100%.
BTW: reducing tax rates is the proven way of government fostering economic growth and development.
Reduced tax rates are subsidies when you believe the regime owns you and is oh so liberal as to allow you to keep some of youe earnings it does not need to fund your subjugation.
Solyndra was not “picking winners and losers.” It was political pay back to Solyndra’s billionaire Obama cash bundler.
“Krauthammer’s article today is full of glowing praise for Santorum, which actually mildly surprises me.”
Santorum is from the Northeast, not like all those red-state rubes from the South and Midwest. In addition, Santorum is part of the Wilsonian GOP Establishment. Of course Dr. K is going to love him some Santorum
Krauthammer is a Teddy Roosevelt Republican who recognizes who our enemies are on this planet, as does Santorum.
Although a pro-abort, Krauthammer has also called for the overturning of Roe:
http://www.lifenews.com/2007/05/11/nat-3113/
I have enjoyed Krauthmmer’s columns over the years, appreciating his reasoning even when disagreeing with him, and I am happy he likes Santorum.
Since I endorsed Santorum two days ago, despite his deficiencies on a number of issues, I’m glad to see him get support from whatever quarters he can.
But I still think my explanation for Dr. K’s support is probably right on the money. The “making the world safe for democracy” crowd in the GOP sticks together. (And that crowd has a stronger resemblance to W.W. than they do to T.R., both of whom were from the so-called “Progressive” tradition, by the way.)
Santorum is from the Northeast, not like all those red-state rubes from the South and Midwest
Mr. Santorum is from Pittsburgh. That’s the Rustbelt, not New England or the BosWash corridor.
(And that crowd has a stronger resemblance to W.W. than they do to T.R., both of whom were from the so-called “Progressive” tradition, by the way.)
Actually Jay Roosevelt was much more eager to get into World War I than Wilson and blasted him regularly for his unwillingness to do so. Roosevelt also pioneered nation building in Cuba after the Spanish-American War. What is called Wilsonian foreign policy might be better called Rooseveltian foreign policy. The Republican party had a spasm of isolationism in the thirties and up to Pearl Harbor but it has basically always been activist in foreign policy, other than for that time period, dating back to the sending of Sheridan with 50,000 troops into Texas immediately at the end of the Civil War to strongly tell the French to get their gallic hides out of Mexico.
However, for all I know his foreign policy views might well be what attracts Krauthammer to Santorum. Krauthammer has had his doubts about Romney for some time:
Donald: Thanks for the link, I was intending on getting towards NR sometime today. Glad I’m not the only person who reads his work (some of my conservative friends say, “Who?” when I mention his name). He has a weekly editorial/opinion column in my local newspaper, The Greenville Times (Greenville SC).
Art: The general term “Northeast” refers to: Maine, NH, Vermont, Mass, RI, Conn, NY, PA, and NJ. I would agree, though, that Eastern PA (having spent several years living there) is more like Ohio than the rest of the Northeast region, it still technically is part of the Northeast corridor.
CK is interesting, and the article is a nice write-up, BUT he has a double standard here. Some say Perry is a long shot for nomination, and CK calls him a dead man walking. Many say Santorum is a long shot on winning the general, but CK calls him “first challenger to be plausibly presidential” along with several other accolades.
I like Santorum, but he has a very tough road ahead.
– He needs to put the personal issues to the side (Don’t worry. They will naturally come out anyway.) and make clear to the public what his policies would be. Right now, it’s muddled (ex: artificial contraception), and the MSM will happily paint his personal opinion as public policy and cry “Theocracy!”
– He needs to continue retooling himself to move away from the petulance we saw in the early debates.
– No more debating the audience like he did at the college on homosexual marriage. The campaign trail is not the senate. State your position and why and move on.
This is the part of Rick that has me worried. I actually agree with a few of the positions he took, but that’s a long list.
http://www.redstate.com/erick/2012/01/06/what-a-big-government-conservative-looks-like/
The notion that part of Santorum’s appeal to many “establishment” types has to do with his being from the Northeast and not the South I would think is inarguable.
Clearly there is a sentiment among some that a Northeastern candidate (such as Romney or Santorum or Christie) or Upper Midwest candidate (such as Pawlenty or Daniels) would help to expand the base of the party beyond what has been for the last 20 or so years a Republican “solid South”.
Living in Ohio, I recognize that Pittsburgh and Western PA are considered rust belt. So are Buffalo and Syracuse. But that doesn’t make them any less part of the Northeast.
Santorum is borderline Northeast at best. Bachmann was Midwest but that didn’t help her image. The Northeast Republican image has more to do with perception than actual geography. Bush 2000 and McCain were acceptable to Northeast Republicans.
Living in Ohio, I recognize that Pittsburgh and Western PA are considered rust belt. So are Buffalo and Syracuse. But that doesn’t make them any less part of the Northeast.
1. Cross-cultural contempt is a reality (lucidly expressed at one point by whathisname in the Oval Office), but you imputed to a particular individual (a man who grew up in Montreal and has spent his adult life in Washington after a run of years in Boston) a particular attitude that I think you would have a difficult time demonstrating he holds.
2. Political boundaries and compass points are not optimal (much less exclusive means) for delineating regions. The ‘Midwest’ has two components:
a. A savanna zone which was (until recent decades) intensely invested in agriculture and has a fairly truncated settlement hierarchy, with cities of middling and large size found only on its peripheries;
b. A deciduous forest zone with a full settlement hierarchy and (until recent decades) an unusual affinity for heavy industry and slavic immigrants.
Each of the cities of the BosWash corridor is a region unto itself and divergent from proximate provincial territory. I am not sure any were ever ‘industrial cities’ to the extent Chicago or Detroit were industrial cities. Economic and demographic adjustments derived from the decay of manufacturing are still ongoing in Detroit and Buffalo; not so cities farther east. (Have a look at some place names in Upstate New York and Michigan. You will see people from the one were settling the other).
The Midwest begins at Allentown.
Actually, Santorum does have a (slight) Midwestern connection… he attended a Catholic high school in Chicago for a year while his dad was stationed at Great Lakes Naval Training Center.