Coulter opposes women voting

October 4, 2007

After a rigorous 12-step program, I was able to stop writing blog posts about right-wing clown Ann Coulter, who goes out of her way to say stupid things in exchange for media attention.

Alas, I’m off the wagon. Telling the New York Observer that women shouldn’t vote is too good not to mention.

“If we took away women’s right to vote, we’d never have to worry about another Democrat president. It’s kind of a pipe dream, it’s a personal fantasy of mine, but I don’t think it’s going to happen. And it is a good way of making the point that women are voting so stupidly, at least single women.

“It also makes the point, it is kind of embarrassing, the Democratic Party ought to be hanging its head in shame, that it has so much difficulty getting men to vote for it. I mean, you do see it’s the party of women and ‘We’ll pay for health care and tuition and day care — and here, what else can we give you, soccer moms?'”

Garance Franke-Ruta argues that this could, if used correctly, be “as much of a gift to the Democratic Party as MoveOn.org’s advertisement on Gen. Petraeus was for the G.O.P. More of a gift, even.”

I would like to see that quote, “If we took away women’s right to vote, we’d never have to worry about another Democratic president. It’s kind of a pipe dream, a personal fantasy of mine,” as the header on GOTV mailers along with pictures of Coulter and whichever candidates were stupid enough to associate themselves with her earlier in the year. I would like to see it on television ads.

The idea that today’s G.O.P. leaders are craven and idiotic enough to associate themselves with someone who could say such a thing will catapult women to the polls.

Sounds good to me.

“…women are voting so stupidly, at least single women.”

…speaking for herself, of course, as a single woman.

  • It also makes the point, it is kind of embarrassing, the Democratic Party ought to be hanging its head in shame, that it has so much difficulty getting men to vote for it. I mean, you do see it’s the party of women …

    As a member of the male gender, I should perhaps stop myself from saying this, but as a scientist I must consider the posiblity that the voting patterns of males vs. females in regard to Democrats vs. Republicans is perhaps the strongest evidence out there that there is indeed an intelligence gap between the sexes and that males are on the low side of the gap.

  • Why do people pay any attention to this person? Everything she says is calculated to get her the one thing she feeds on – attention – and I’ve decided that the more harsh the criticism, the better she likes it, because I think that at some level, she really does not believe herself to be a worthwhile human being.

    It’s a self-fulfilling prophecy for her, and seems to be working just fine.

    If we ignored her, maybe she would go away, or in the alternative, say or do something attention-seeking that is so over-the-top that even her staunchest defenders would have to jump ship. Given that she’s said some pretty vile things, it would have to be so bad as to be unimaginable.

    I hope she’s being smart with her investments, because the only people who will pay attention to her when she’s old and feeble will be those she has to pay to take care of her.

  • If we ignored her, maybe she would go away, or in the alternative, say or do something attention-seeking that is so over-the-top that even her staunchest defenders would have to jump ship.

    No. She’s already said things so over-the-top that her staunchest defenders SHOULD have had to jump ship, but people were ignoring her hoping that she’d go away.

    It’s past time for the “if we ignore them maybe they’ll go away” approach to work. It’s been tried for a decade now and it hasn’t worked – the insects are still wiggling away under their rocks. Better to shine a big bright light on their craziness and point out how much the political elites of the right wing kowtow to these crazy weirdos. THAT’S the only way to get them to lose influence – ridicule them and use their inanity as a basis for doing political harm to their enablers.

  • And if Ni*****, Ch****, Ki***, Sp**** weren’t allowed to vote, she’d be happy too.

    In Florida, they’ve been working to make Ann happy, intimidating minorities and vote caging.

    On another note, is the “orange” question an intelligence test to keep right wingers from posting?

  • Wasn’t this hideous tranny recently the focus of a voting fraud investigation?
    Laughably pathetic, but not surprising considering that like the other fRight Wing Pundicks, Coulter must say increasingly outrageous things to get the attention she craves.

    If she isn’t already, she’s well on her way to becoming the darling of the Taliban.

  • It’s kind of a pipe dream, a personal fantasy of mine,”

    Wonder what kind of pipe. And what sort of fantasy, involving it…

  • Nony – I think the bright light approach works, in general, but not for Coulter, who comes crawling out of the woodwork in search of some bright lights – she feeds off the attention, and the more critical it is, the bigger her grin.

    Rather than serve up what she wants, which is the criticism, we could try pity; reminding her at every turn how empty her life is might send her scurrying away.

  • Coulter is actually on target this time. The Republicans have been engaging in voter-suppression efforts in recent elections, but usually targeted against minority voters who tend to vote for Democrats. (See CB’s post just previous to this one.)

    It’s easier to target racial minorities because they tend to live in particular precincts. So the tactic has been to blanket those particular neighborhoods with threats, or send an insufficient number of voting machines to those particular precincts.

    Women do tend to vote Democratic in larger percentages than men, but they will be more difficult to target. Men and women tend to be well-integrated within the same precincts. But I’m sure that with a little ingenuity, the Republican thugs will come up with something to suppress women’s votes.

  • you do see it’s the party of women

    and don’t forget ‘fags’ (m)Ann.

    It’s interesting to me that the Republican’ts continue to try to associate the ‘Democrat’ party and liberals in any number of disparaging ways. From calling its cadidates fags to the passive-aggressive of calling party members women. And by somehow associating “liberal” with liars, traitors and defeatists.
    It is very reminiscent of Goebbels attempts to disparage Jewish people by associating them with stereotypical images and comparing them to vermin. Eventually the German public bought the image. Now the Republican’ts are using the same tactics, not on a race of people, but on a political party, in the hopes of turning Americans against anyone associated with that party.
    Truly frightening.

  • Why are we so worried about al Qaeda coming here and imposing sharia law when we have people like Ann Coulter doing it for them?

    Coulter is the daddy party’s “daddy’s little girl.” I wouldn’t be so concerned about her remarks if Hans von Spakovsky wasn’t closing in on being in the position to act on them.

  • I think that mAnne “O’Rexic” Coulter has just given us proof that she is in fact a transgendered man still posing as a woman (which also explains her favorable words for Rupaul W. Giuliani in the same interview), since it stands to reason that “she” would not want her own right to vote taken away.

  • Imagine if Al Franken said we should take away every Baptist’s right to vote, because they vote so stupidly?

    Like Anne says in #3, the best thing to do is to ignore her. I would add that instead we all write nice letters to every single advertiser who associates themselves with the places she gets paid to spew her bile. Write and ask them why they pay someone to go around insulting over half the American population. Tell them their products will be avoided like the plague until they refuse to sponsor such a hateful person.

    Ignore the ranting of the attention slut, and go for her jugular. Her advertisers. And if you know any Republican women, make sure they know Ann Coulter thinks their votes should be taken away.

  • My personal fantasy is that talking heads, like Coulter, wake up one day and can’t speak. But it’s not worth giving up my right to vote.

  • I don’t think anyone will care, she’s been saying this for years. I remember hearing that on Politically Incorrect, when it was on Comedy Central…

  • Isn’t this the same Ann Coulter who claims that she’s a man?

    I distinctly remember Ann Coulter saying that she’s more of a man than any liberal.

  • Isn’t this the same Ann Coulter who claims that she’s a man?

    I distinctly remember Ann Coulter saying that she’s more of a man than any liberal.

    I’m not going to wager any money against her on that score, of course.

  • Is the converse true? If we took away men’s right to vote, would we not have to worry about ever electing a Republican president again? Or Ann Coulter ever voting again?

  • Isn’t she “the person formerly known as Andrew Coulter?” And if she’s claiming that she’s “still a man,” then what are we talking about here—a sex-change operation that’s only half finished? Is the right really ready to come out and admit that they’re openly embracing a she-male as one of their own?

    Quick—someone fire off a note to James Dobson. We can “castrate” the GOP right now (no pun intended, of course)….

  • Not that facts matter to Coulter, but for the rest of us, here’s some interesting excerpts from last month in the NYT: Soccer and Security Moms Unite

    Overall, women voted 51 percent Democratic to 48 percent Republican in the 2004 presidential election…

    In 2004, married women… voted for Mr. Bush by a 55 percent to 44 percent margin. But unmarried women voted… for Senator John Kerry by a margin of 62 percent to 37 percent.

    But shortly after that, married women started to see things differently. Some say it was the war. Others say it was the Terri Schiavo case or Hurricane Katrina or changing views of the threat from terrorism. Married women, including the ones who live in the suburbs, now appear more likely than in 2004 to vote for a Democrat this time around. In a New York Times/CBS News poll conducted in July, a plurality, 46 percent, of married women who live in the suburbs said that if the presidential election were held today, they would vote for a Democrat, while 29 percent said they would vote for a Republican.

  • Isn’t this the same Ann Coulter who claims that she’s a man?

    I distinctly remember Ann Coulter saying that she’s more of a man than any liberal.

    GAHHH!!!!

  • You will perish eternally in hellfire and be tormented by the spirits of the Falluja Blackwater heroes, Swan.

  • I’m NOT going to talk about her. I’m NOT going to talk about her. I’m
    NOT going to talk about her. I’m NOT going to talk about her. I’m NOT
    going to talk about her. I’m NOT going to talk about her. I’m NOT
    going to talk about her. I’m NOT going to talk about her. I’m NOT
    going to talk about her. I’m NOT going to talk about her. I’m NOT
    going to talk about her. I’m NOT going to talk about her. I’m NOT
    going to talk about her…

  • Libra (#7), I think the “pipe” she had in mind was the same one O’Reilly was referring to in his pornographic phone call — ““Put down that pipe and get my pipe up.” I’m sure she has one.

  • She Who Will Not Be Named always makes these outrageously stupid comments whenever her books are published. That’s her MO, and she should be ignored.

  • I’m not generally in the practice of saying or writing anything in the way of support for Hillary Clinton… but if she is the nominee, she’d be pretty foolish not to find a way to use this gem.

    Coulter is the Terrell Owens of unhinged righty nuts. Far from ignoring her, the Democrats should do everything possible to make her the hideous face and hate-addled voice of modern mutant pseudo-conservatism. Ask every Republican presidential candidate if they agree that women shouldn’t vote, or that 9/11 widows are “enjoying their husbands’ deaths,” or that… well, I could go on, but what happened to the Phillies this afternoon already has me sufficiently nauseated.

  • Rich, fat (oh ok thin ones too) white guys and people with sexual orientation denial issues tend to vote for authoritarian types/ Neocon Republicans.

    Most woman are aware that money doesn’t trickle down and that male supremacy is not good for their health. In addition women tend to be more focused on the success of their progeny, rather than on the next quarter’s bottom line. A matter of priorities one might say….and thus vote Democratic.

    I f you saw the Daly Show last night, John interviewing Chris Matthews…about his book…something about “Life is a Campaign”, in essence saying that dog & pony shows are what it is all about, not real issues or soul. It sort of epitomized what the GOP now stands for….a façade of propaganda.

  • PS: I don’t listen to Limbaugh or Coulter if I can help it. They are both seeking to bring us down to our lowest common denominators…as are the TV or radio stations who carry them. OTOH I do like robust differnences of opinion, but they don’t provide that.

  • MW said: “…as a scientist I must consider the posiblity that the voting patterns of males vs. females in regard to Democrats vs. Republicans is perhaps the strongest evidence out there that there is indeed an intelligence gap between the sexes and that males are on the low side of the gap.”

    Actually, it’s white American males who are mostly lower than lemurs on the evulation scale.

    How much was Annie the Trannie’s adam’s apple bobbing when he said that??

  • Ah. Everyone keeps saying she’s a man. I don’t know… I’m thinking she’s something they made up in a lab – man crossed with horse, injected with cro-magnon DNA, with a hint of donkey for spice, dressed in a drag package. Just sayin’.

  • Actually, it’s white American males who are mostly lower than lemurs on the evulation scale.

    Proving my own point 🙂

    EVOLUTION!!!! (Note to self: spellcheck is indeed useful on occasion)

  • I wonder what kind of drugs she’s on. Or maybe it’s a brain tumor like that hack who worked for Reagan….

  • ***Ann Coulter has the brains of a radish.***

    Anney, the radishes of the world have just declared jihad on you for that one….

  • Why, if she believes what she says, isn’t she somewhere serving a man? If she believes her own words, she is a heretic in her own eyes. Where are her husband and children, to whom she should be tending? Why is she involved in politics when she should be home raising her children, fixing her husband’s dinner, and going to PTA meetings to catch up on the latest gossip?

    These uppity hussies will be the death of us yet.

  • #8

    Alex, don’t feel bad. Most of us say stupid things. We just don’t have the Fake News Network to trumpet out stupidity to the conservative pinheads. (no offense meant to non-conservative pinheads) This creature, Coulter, has had way too much exposure. For a lawyer she seems more like a mercenary.

  • Ms. Coulter is 100% correct!

    For the sake of The UNITED STATES of AMERICA!!!

    Don’t f— things up, all you female voters!!!!!!!!

  • This is not a new argument. The late right-wing novelist Taylor Caldwell made similar arguments in her books and articles. The much married anti-feminist Miss Caldwell argued that women weren’t smart enough to vote and that left to their own devices, they would only vote for handsome male candidates, not being intelligent enough to look beyond the handsome face. It’s an argument from the 19th century, repackaged for the 21st century.

    Ann Coulter is of course oblivious to both irony and hypocrisy. Her behavior reminds me of that of Phyllis Schlafly, who traveled all over the country to campaign against the ERA and counseling women to stay home from their wives and families, while staying away from her own family.

  • “…women are voting so stupidly, at least single women.”

    …speaking for herself, of course, as a single woman.

    And one who apparently has trouble voting in the correct precinct.

    Coulter is the daddy party’s “daddy’s little girl.”

    Actually, I think she’s just the dominatrix-fantasy module of their massive sexual-issues center, with Malkin being her counterpart.

  • You libs will get any Conservative to say something as horrendous as MoveOn’s ad!!!

    Hey, Horseface Radishbrain Ann said that all on her own! She didn’t have any help from the left.

  • Can’t you people show a little sympathy? Life is hard enough for Anne. Do you have any idea as to the effort she must make to pass as human? Can you even imagine what it must be like to wear high heels when you have cloven hooves?

    Seriously, isn’t she due for a jew joke? I haven’t seen anything about the handi capped yet either. Is anybody out there running a pool? I’ll like to take “Ann insults para-pelegics as “simply lazy” by December 15th, 2007″ for two dollars, but I want the bonus if her target is jewish, gay or black… any takers? Odds? Shouldn’t there be a website?

  • This confirms what I always suspected…Anne Coulter is a man in drag…a facist, nutty man in drag…a fascist,nutty,ugly man in drag…a fascist , nutty, ugly man in drag who desperately needs a makeover…

  • Coulter isn’t entirely wrong. (It’s HARD to be wrong 100%, truly.)

    The Dems might be able to pick some votes up of they did stop approving almost every spending measure that came their way.

    Like S-CHIP, I’d really rather the government only help with life and death stuff and only for those who need it.

    It wouldn’t break my heart if millionaires got no social security checks if it meant we could maintain its solvency.
    It doesn’t bother me that people making 84,000 in New York were turned down for a health care handout. I wouldn’t mind if the threshold for handouts in New Jersey were lowered from its current 72,000/ That kind of generosity makes good programs like this targets for teh bad guys.,

    I LIKE welfare reform that makes it harder for Reagan’s “welfare queens” to exist. That makes legit needs for welfare harder to criticize.

    I’d like to see an end to child tax deductions. Why do we have incentives to make more people when there’s a surplus elsewhere. Let America be the pressure valve for the world and raise legal immigration quotas. Are we so narcissistic that we think any random American baby will surpass the worthiness of citizenship of the man who’s willing to take our grueling citizenship tests, wait up to five years to come and squirrel away three years of savings to pay for a slot on a fishing boat over here? Want to give me odds who the productive, energizing citizen is likelier to be?

    The GOP wants to turn the tap off, extreme liberals want to turn teh spigots on full blast. Somewhere in the middle lies sanity, efficiency, and lots of votes.

    As a totally superficial side note… what’s with all the ladies here calling Ann ugly?
    Did she get hit by a truck since I saw her last?
    Don’t hate her cuz she’s beautiful, ladies. There’s PLENTY of legit reasons to go around.
    She’s the reason the phrase “Beauty is only skin deep” was coined

  • Eleanor Roosevelt was beautiful. Ann Coulter is ugly. In the eyes of most women, beauty in other women has nothing to do with physical appearance.

  • The real solution to this country’s political problems is to take the right to vote away from white southerners. Or maybe just white southern males. No Republican would ever be president. The US would evolve into a relatively peaceful social democracy.

    Laney
    A white southern male

  • Just an observation: The original cabinet positions in the USA were Secretary of State; Secretary of the Treasury; Secretary of Defense (War, back then); and Attorney General. Postmaster General was also in there until it was made independent in the 1070s. These are all governmental functions mentioned in the Constitution or rationally related to such functions. As the country grew in the 1800s, we added Secretary of the Interior, and Secretary of Agriculture. Again, both are rationally related to national government functions. Early in the 1900s, we added Secretary of Commerce and Secretary of Labor — the latter was arguably not related to a government function, but major labor unrest of the previous decades made it seem like a good idea at the time to keep the economy moving smoothly. Women got the federal right to vote in 1920. Over the next 46 years, we added Secretary of Health and Human Services; Secretary of Education (these two used to be a single Department of Health, Education and Welfare); Secretary of Housing and Urban Development; and Secretary of Transportation. Of these, HHS, Education and HUD are clearly not constitutionally mandated federal functions or related to such. They do, however, have much to do with personal security — for example, putting a roof over my family’s head, putting food on the table for me and my children, taking care of my and my children’s medical needs. From 1866-1893, federal revenue exceeded federal expenditures every year. From 1940-1946, the expenditures of the federal government — in a time of war! — totalled $370 billion. Our current federal budget is around $2.8 trillion! Of this, $699 billion is for Defense, but $586.1 billion is for Social Security; $394.5 billion is for Medicare; $367.0 billion is for Unemployment and welfare; $276.4 billion is for Medicaid and other health related; and $89.9 billion is for Education and training. That’s $1.714 trillion for social programs, none of which are mandated in the Constitution, and all of which came into existence after women were given the vote! So is this just coincidence or is there a relationship between women voting and women voting for politicians who give them government benefits that make them feel more secure? But likely the more pressing question is can we as a country sustain this continuing growth level in spending without collapsing the economy when the revenue producers refuse to work their asses off to support the revenue takers?

  • Fallacy:
    Chuck Friar asked: … can we as a country sustain this continuing growth level in spending without collapsing the economy when the revenue producers refuse to work their asses off to support the revenue takers?
    Contrary to the presupposition of this question, we all belong to both groups.

  • A Republican friend, who still supports George Bush, wrote to me about General Betrayus; I corrected his name in my reply. Yesterday, another email, General Betrayus again. I could correct his name again…

    The more that Republicans launch flak at the General Betrayus ad, the more people hear General Betrayus, the more people can’t help thinking General Betrayus, the more Republicans have to defend General Betrayus from charges of betrayal, the more people know about the betrayals, the more people can’t help thinking General Betrayus, the more Republicans have to…

    Republicans themselves (not just my friend) have demonstrated that they can’t get General Betrayus out of their minds. As soon as they hear his name again…

    MoveOn.org deserves all the publicity it gained from the General Betrayus ad, and all the money that people sent them after the General Betrayus ad, and more…

    https://political.moveon.org/donate/donate.html

  • Janus said: “Contrary to the presupposition of this question, we all belong to both groups”. I be to differ. I live in a city that has massive public housing projects and an enormous welfare population. How are the folks who live rent-free and feed themselves on food obtained by trading food stamps to the store working their asses off? They are not putting in a 40-hour work week, much less the 60-hour or more that the higher income earners often put in. I don’t get a dime of federal or state or local welfare money — I pay for my own home and for every scrap of food that goes into my mouth (except when my girlfriend cooks dinner). So how is it in your reckoning that someone who isn’t working is a revenue producer and someone who is not taking government subsidies is a revenue taker? If you truly believe that a welfare recipient is a productive member of society, then please let me be your special welfare project — I will gladly stop working 60 hours a week representing mostly indigent clients and you can just send me a check for $10,000 a month to replace my income, plus a separate check for $50,000 to reimburse me for the costs that I paid putting myself through undergraduate and law school (after all, who needs an advanced education or ambition when you can get someone else to pay for everything for you?). And, BTW, that check may have to increase in future — my girlfriend really likes designer clothes and accessories, and you can’t deny her the pleasures that “rich” folks can have, just because I’ll be on Janus-welfare; that would be discriminatory. I’d love to keep typing, but I need to get to court…

  • Pingback: Ann Coulter on Women’s Suffrage « Fear of Ignorance

  • If Ann Coulter wants the right to vote be taken away from women, how soon will she be turning in her own voter ID card? She’s got to do one of two things now: 1) Admit that as a woman she herself shouldn’t vote, or 2) Admit that in fact she’s been a man all along. It’s either/or now Ann, can’t have it both way…

  • Chuck said “But likely the more pressing question is can we as a country sustain this continuing growth level in spending without collapsing the economy when the revenue producers refuse to work their asses off to support the revenue takers?”

    We found a trillion for Iraq, didn’t we? And that’s been pretty useless. None of the reasons originally cited for the invasion turned out to be true.

    So there’s no reason we can’t find a trillion for social programs, which have proven to be very useful.

    Is there?

  • Tempting as it is to say that Coulter has just outed herself as a female impersonator, I will conclude instead that she is a biological female racked with such neurotic self-hatred that she thinks the best way to curry favor with those in power (i.e.conservative white males), she must trash her own group even more viciously than they do. In that respect, she’s cut from the same cloth as feminist-basher and lesbian-hater, the lesbian “scholar” Camille Paglia, or of course the anti-gay-marriage stalwart of the stall, Larry Craig.

  • My favorite husband says, “Ann Coulter is an Evil Mutant”.

    I say, the person who suggested she has the brain of a radish was insulting the radish family. Many radishes are quite sharp. Ann Coulter has the brain of a *turnip*.

    • Comments are closed.