Why Ann Coulter Should Be Skull-F**ked

Okay, okay.... I know that title may appear to be a little harsh.

Just last night, the Wife and I were talking about the negatives of the use of explicative language in my blog. I do like to keep some kind of civilized discourse in my quasi-sensical rants. However, when a true douchebag like Ann Coulter comes along - all bets are off.

The money shot:

I don't know where to start. First, if you haven't seen this, then you must be living under a rock - or are not nearly as obsessed with political mumbo-jumbo as I am. Which is not necessarily a bad thing.

You have to understand that Ann Coulter is a media-whore, plain and simple. In fact, I would argue that she is THE Media-Whore-In-Chief. Am I the only one that notices that her repugnance seems to increase just as she is releasing a new book? Seriously, she's a calculated PR stunt - with blonde hair and bony legs.

But I digress...

"Coultergeist" (as my homie K.O. calls her) is known for spewing this bile - aiming it at "liberals" - and usually hides behind the thin veil of "humor" as an excuse. This sickens me - as I like to consider myself somewhat of a humorist.

Look I'm all for free speech and everything, but there comes a point - usually when you are saying that a 9/11 widow is enjoying her husband's death - that you have to put on the brakes and use some common sense:

These broads are millionaires, lionized on TV and in articles about them, reveling in their status as celebrities and stalked by grief-arazzies. I have never seen people enjoying their husbands’ death so much. - Ann Coulter, Godless: The Church Of Liberalism

Unbelievable. Seriously, unbelievable.

So now she has been revving up the hate-machine once again as a pre-requisite for her book Godless coming out in paperback. She goes on Hardball with Chris Matthews and "debates" Elizabeth Edwards - not on policy or issues, but on the role of personal attacks on candidates in intelligent political debate.

Here's where it gets simply sad. As Elizabeth Edwards is making her point about the dumbing-down of political dialog due to personal attacks, Coulter continually changes the subject. First she tries to distract by pointing out that the Edwards campaign has been using Coulter's venomous diatribe as a fund raising ploy. Then, as Mrs. Edwards is describing the column in which Coulter suggests that John Edwards used his son's tragic death as a campaign stunt, Coulter again tries to change the subject and asks why Elizabeth is making the call instead of John.

Just sad. If she weren't such a massive ________, I might almost feel bad for her. (you fill in the blank - it's an interactive blog)

So, where does this leave us? Here are my thoughts - in random fashion.

1:: Stupid personal attacks should not see the light of day in true political dialog. Sure, one person may COMPLETELY disagree with another's political ideology or viewpoint, but this should not result in name-calling or ya-mama jokes. Ridiculous.

2:: Those few imbeciles who DO resort to Bill O'Reilly-like personal attacks, don't deserve a seat at the collective table of discussion. When these folks ARE allowed a place-setting, they distort the conversation and cloud the discussion of serious topics.

3:: If you want to have intelligent debate on the war in Iraq, health care, education, immigration or foreign policy - I'm in. But what good does it do to begin attacking a political or ideological rival based on something so trite. I'll give you an example - again from Coulter: for some strange reason, Ann Coulter finds it irresistible to refer to Barack Obama as "B. Hussein Obama". Now, granted, his middle name is indeed Hussein - but what good does it do to HIGHLIGHT that as his middle name? Unreal. It's his FRIGGIN' NAME... he can't do anything about that - even if he wanted to!

Bottom line: If you are out to sell a book, or just cause havoc in the media, do us all a favor and shut the hell up. I regularly watch The Daily Show and other book-plugging programs (FYI, the reason I'm reading Al Gore's The Assault On Reason is because I saw his interview with Jon Stewart and my interest was piqued), and I know that you don't have to act like a __________ to sell books.

So go ahead and skull-f**k Ann Coulter.



NOTE:: I know that I've resorted to name-calling in reference to those who disagree with my political and ideological views - that irony is not lost on me. HOWEVER, I would never stoop to this level with someone who is able to have a real political discussion. I cite Joe Scarborough as my example in this case: the guy is conservative, moreso than I, and yet he does not call people names and use personal attacks to further his ideology.

BAM!

filed in: Al Gore, Ann Coulter, Barack Obama, Bill O'Reilly, Election 2008, Joe Scarborough, John Edwards, Mediashare: