Ann Coulter’s Reaction to Election Results

Whatever one might think of right-wing pundit Ann Coulter (below, posing with Bookman from Good Times), one cannot help but be drawn to her first post-election column. The same would be the case for one of her left-wing counterparts had Sen. McCain won, though that box of Lucky Charms would come with a free “I’m moving to Canada” toy inside, but I digress.


After 2 years of continuously (perhaps uncharitably) referring to the now President-elect by his full name in her columns, one could almost imagine what sort of mischief the willowy Ms. Coulter had up her designer sleeve.

Well, the wait is over for friend and foe alike.

The opening line sets the table. She comments on the historicity of last night’s outcome,

Last night was truly a historic occasion: For only the second time in her adult life, Michelle Obama was proud of her country!

Click on the link below to read the rest of the column:

The Reign of Lame Falls Mainly on McCain

12 Responses to Ann Coulter’s Reaction to Election Results

  1. katdish says:

    You had me at Bookman from Good Times…

  2. Laz says:

    I wish I could take credit for that line, but it belongs to Chris Rock.

  3. elle evers says:

    What’s Coulter’s problem. She has material to rant in a few more book publications. And who will be reading those books: the retards who voted for Obama since they’re still smarter than the republicans. All of America saw the McCain-Palin supporters. Yikes…we need to put a lot more money into student loans and provide incentive programs to all republicans.

  4. Laz says:

    Thanks for commenting.

    All of America also saw the supporters for the eventual winning ticket and there is plenty of “yikes” to go around.

    From the Obama/Biden supporters that I personally had conversations with (including family members), their reasons for voting as they did were not very impressive, and for sure were not very well thought out.

  5. elle evers says:

    True enough, but I didn’t see the kind of close-minded rage from Obama supporters that I saw from many McCain supporters. I believe Palin did a disservice to politifcs and to the spirit of this country by participating in that sort of “egging on” the more or less close-minded populace. Many people voted for Ombama because he’s black or African-American, many because he is or appears to be an educated elite middle-class individual. Many voted for McCain because of his war record, older supporters because of his age and what his age represents to an older generation. Some wanted Palin because she’s a woman, maybe because she’s attractive. My point: we all vote for whatever our reasons and they might all be valid in the end, but instigating aggressiveness or possibly violence is just not to be tolerated anymore. We have to move beyond what will limit us as humans and embrace what will contribute to the well being of humanity.

  6. Laz says:


    instigating aggressiveness or possibly violence is just not to be tolerated anymore

    Does this extend to the opponents of Prop 8 in California who insist on using violence to express their displeasure at the democratic passage of Prop 8?

  7. elle evers says:

    Yes. I understand that gays feel we, as a country, finally moved beyond a biggoted past and it lifted the spirits of many people all around the world, yet, we remained close-minded about gay marriage. As I understand, blacks voted for Prop 8 when it appears they were just somehow re-emmancipated. When people are hurt, they reach down to the lowest depth and counter with something ugly. All people in history have done it. That’s why non violence, tolerance, love, peace, and all that jazz is the answer. We might have been moved even further than we are now, I’m sure we would have, if we embraced and celebrated our differences instead of finding our differences somehow threatening to our “self-ness.”

  8. Laz says:

    It’s not about being close-minded. It’s about recognizing that just as there is no such thing as a round square or a rectangular circle, there is no such thing as “gay marriage”.

    Call it a “civil union” or whatever else but just don’t call it “gay marriage”.

    It’s just a statement of fact, plain and simple.

  9. elle evers says:

    My question is this: Does it take away from the bond between a man and a women who get married when two men or two women get married in the same way?

    If 2 men or 2 women could get “married” in the same way (they cannot), it wouldn’t take anything away from the bond b/w a man and a woman. But even allowing for “gay marriage” that’s neither here nor there. By your rationale, incest doesn’t take anything away from the bond b/w a man and a woman so why not allow that too?

    Also, I don’t follow your analogy of a round square. Something round is round and something square is square dictated by natural law. Marriage did not exist prior to the social conventions that designed it. Gravity exists even if humans do not. Marriage only exists because humans do. That is the open-mindedness I am talking about.

    You’re right in saying that 1)marriage did not exist before human beings and 2)marriage only exists b/c we do. But it does necessarily follow that it was thought up by human beings. Of course, if you are em, married to a naturalistic worldview then you have no choice but to believe that marriage was thought up by human beings.

    If you do hold this type of worldview, you still can’t explain that no culture in the history of mankind has ever said marriage occurs between 2 members of the same sex. Why? Because it is as absurd. To use a more arbitraty illustration, it would be akin to me refusing to call a spoon a spoon. Sure I could convince myself that it really is a fork, so much so that I can convince others to join my cause but it still doesn’t change the fact that a spoon is still a spoon.

  10. elle evers says:

    Please be careful of falling back on the “it’s either black or white” rationale such as if we can do anything, then why not incest. There is a taboo in every culture against incest because to inbreed in such a way would damage our genetic integrity. It is a biological safety precaution to ensure the optimal evolution of the species. Morally, do you really care if your neighbor married his sister. If no one told you they were married, you wouldn’t give it a thought. So can we disregard that analogy.

    Well said since, as I pointed out, there is (well was) a taboo in every culture against calling homosexual unions “marriage”. Are you so certain that homosexuality does not do harm to those who willingly participate in such acts? So certain are you?

    Brothers marrying sisters?!? Oh no, no no, let’s scale it up. We can disregard the analogy so long as you wouldn’t be “morally” cool with a father marrying his adult daughter.

    You don’t have to call a spoon a spoon if you don’t want to.
    Sure but I’d be a garrulous fool if I kept calling it a crayon…

    There is a different word for it in every language. Is it just the word “marriage” that you hold sacred? Besides the fact that a spoon is a physical item not a social concept which is dynamic and changing as history proves.

    Funny that you bring up history. Why? Because as a point of fact, history proves that marriage does not apply to homosexual relationships. Different cultures have disagreed on the rightness of polygamy but even then the issue of marriage encompassing homosexual individuals was always agreed upon.

    People can be married by a judge or the mayor. They are no less married than someone married in the church. A couple married on their front lawn by the mayor doesn’t proclaim, “We have a civil union.” So is it that that couple can say we’re married becasue we are a man and a woman?

    I go by what God said in His revealed will to us, His creatures. Mainly Genesis 2:24, words which Jesus echoes in the Gospels. One man, one woman. Yes several biblical figures practiced polygamy, but in now way was it ever sanctioned by God.

    So it doesn’t matter if it’s in a church or on a front lawn, you can’t say you’re married becasue you are two men or two women? I will agreee, they cannot procreate. If 2% of men marry men and 2% of women marry women, what will happen – to the world, to you personally? I think that question is more to the point.

    Of course, I’d ask you what is the harm of homosexuals not using the word marriage to describe their unions? If the government in Cali already grants homosexual partners the same rights as spouses what difference does it make to call it marriage? You’d have to ask them if they hold the word “marriage” as sacred…

  11. elle evers says:

    There is no such Taboo in every culture against homesexuality.

    That’s not what I said. What I said is that no culture in our history has ever said that marriage involves people of the same sex. Please read more carefully next time before putting words in my mouth.

    Why are you angry about what other people do. How does that take away from your very short life on this earth. If some screwball father and adult daughter want to marry, it doesn’t affect me and I don’t get into that “slippery slope” feeling that creates irrational panic.

    I’m not angry about others using their free agency to feebly attempt to call something what it is not. Pity yes, anger no.

    How many people in the world are gay and want to get married. You are acting like if we accept gays getting marrried, then everyone you know will suddenly flip and marry someone of the same gender, including your siblings and children.

    No, my contention is and will always be that it is impossible (no matter what society decides, see Europe) for a man to marry another man or woman to marry another woman. There is no anger in stating simple fact.

    Just try to chill and let the creator take us where we are supposed to go by living out our humanness, and yes that includes the ugliness in the world. It is through the ugliness that we discover the opposite and move closer and closer to tolerance, acceptance, and love. And before you comment, yes it was much uglier in history. Read some history books and I believe you will see that we are much more of a kinder and gentler people now than we have ever been.

    The 40 million children sacrificed at the altar of choice in this country since 1973 beg to differ with your last sentence.

    Things remain to be as bad as they have always been since the Fall and will remain so until the consummation of all things.

  12. elle evers says:

    “Well said since, as I pointed out, there is (well was) a taboo in every culture against calling homosexual unions “marriage”. Are you so certain that homosexuality does not do harm to those who willingly participate in such acts? So certain are you?”

    Was this not your quote? I copied if word for word. It does say “taboo.”

    Using “marriage” to describe homosexual unions has always been taboo, pick any culture in our history (Modern Europe being the exception of course). Homosexual behavior has not always been taboo, see Sodom and Gomorrah not to mention the ancient Greeks among others.

    There is no rational discussion with someone who has only a religious agenda.

    Elle, as the saying goes, “people who live in glass houses should not throw stones.” Everyone on this planet is religious, the difference of course is what we are religious about. Did a post about this, “Religion is man at his lowest”.

    How can someone debate you about fetus’ being able to “beg to differ.” I would have to poll all of the unborn fetus’ (See how irrational that is). And if the world is so bad since “the Fall” (whatever that means – there were many “falls” in history) would they really want to be born. We all die, some die sooner rather than later. Fetus’ died sooner. Whew. You’re too irrational to debate with. Goodbye.

    I’m sorry if you can’t grasp the concept of the figure of speech (maybe I shouldn’t have used the one about the “glass house” earlier).

    The Fall of man is the historical event when human beings decided to set out on their own, foolishly thinking that they had something on their own outside of God. As CS Lewis said regarding the Fall of Man,

    …out of that hopeless attempt has come nearly all we call human history–money, poverty, ambition, war, prostitution, classes, empires, slavery–the long terrible story of man trying to find something other than God which will make him happy.

    The “falls” you refer to are only symptoms of the disease we willingly acquired at the Fall.

    So since we all have to die (some sooner than later as you pointed out) then why should there be a penalty for murder? By your rationale, all the murderer has to say is “Hey man, we all gotta go sometime”.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: