Quotes Mailbag Links Email Contribute
About AntiCoulter
Why AntiCoulter?
Who Is AntiCoulter?


Writing On Coulter
Evil Or Just Stupid?
Couric, Coulter, Context
The Misunderstood Liberal
With Friends Like These...
Coulter Gets Fired
Donahue Interview
Gene Lyons Sums Her Up
Coulter fascist?
Old Larry King transcript


Lies, Damned Lies, And Coulter Columns
12/18: Democrats Lott
12/4: Wilding Part 3
11/27: Beauty Pageants
11/20: Gray lady
11/13: Democrat giving
11/6: Voter Intimidation
10/30: Muslim Makeover
10/23: Wilding Part 2
10/16: Wilding
10/09: Hot Air on Iraq
10/02: Crooked Dems
9/25: We hate them
9/18: Arabs in a bar
9/11: Adolf
9/04: Murder for Prophet
8/28: Battered Republicans
8/21: Gay Marines
8/14: Make Liberals...Rare
8/07: Nuclear Annihilation
7/31: Working families
7/24: About Money
7/17: Call her Mrs.
7/10: More slander

Humor & Miscellany
T-Shirt Concept, v 1.0
Coulter vs. Mr. T
How To Write A Column
Her Fans Speak Out…
Coulter Quotes
Things We Like About Ann

Contacts & Links
The Mailbag
Contact AntiC
Contribute To AntiC
Links We Like
Pro-Coulter Links

Saddam Hussein Charges Voter Intimidation

Again a service for our readers in a hurry, Speed Coulter...

Title: Saddam Hussein Charges Voter Intimidation
Republicans won an overwhelming victory
Republicans won an overwhelming victory
Democrats favor abortion and adultery
Put Democrats in a prison camp

Now if you still feel the need to read more, here it is:



Saddam Hussein Charges Voter Intimidation
by Ann Coulter
November 6, 2002

IT'S HARD TO say whether election night was worse for Saddam Hussein or Barbra Streisand. Apparently America doesn't want to surrender in the war on terrorism or outlaw the Pledge of Allegiance.

Did I miss something? Was Barbra running for office? Did Tom Daschle offer to surrender to Saddam? And can we put the whole Pledge thing to bed? After that California judge made his ruling, the Senate, led by Daschle, voted 99-0 that they supported keeping "under god" in the Pledge. (No, I don't know who was missing on that vote; if some wants to find out, I'd be curious.)

It was a stunning, record-breaking night. George Bush is the first president in 68 years to gain seats in his first midterm election. Historically, the party in the White House loses seats in the midterm election. This is true even in wartime: Franklin D. Roosevelt lost 50 House seats and eight Senate seats 10 months after Pearl Harbor.

That Bush gained a little is certainly important, and a credit to his hard campaigning over the past few weeks, but let's not call it stunning. The popular vote was almost equally divided between the two parties and the really impressive (and sad) thing is how few people voted. The turn-out, even with all the important issues at stake, was pitiful.

The rest of Coulter's essay continues to try and make the case for a massive Republican mandate. And fails. Again, the popular vote total was very close. Bush, very popular because of the war on terror, helped his party pick up a handful of seats. This is not a mandate. A mandate would be 60+ Republican senators (not 51) and 275+ Republican representatives (not 227). The country remains fairly evenly divided between Republicans and Democrats. (And lets not forget that the Democrats have picked up a couple of governorships; which might be very important in the 2004 presidential contest.)

So again, Coulter is writing an entire essay which is a lie. A tied popular vote does not equal a country 100% behind Bush's agenda, and only someone completely devoid of intellectual honesty would try to make that case. You'll pardon me if I don't bother to comment point by point on all the nonsense that follows.

Though Democrats gleefully cite the midterm election of 1998 when the Democrats picked up six House seats Ð and no Senate seats Ð that was Clinton's second midterm election. Republicans had already realized all their midterm gains in Clinton's first midterm election. In the very first election after people got a look at Clinton in 1994, Republicans picked up 52 seats in the House, eight seats in the Senate, 11 governorships and 12 state legislative chambers. Not a single Republican incumbent lost.

Thanks to Clinton, the '94 Republican sweep marked the first time in half a century that Republicans had a majority in the House. (It was one of many historic moments in the Clinton administration. Another being: "First president accused of rape within weeks of being impeached.") That meant voters in about 50 congressional districts had done something they had never done before in their entire lives: Vote Republican in a congressional election. There was no reason to expect lifelong Democrats in those districts to keep voting Republican in every successive election.

A little historical perspective.
In 1929 there were 39 Senate Democrats and 56 Republicans, 163 House Democrats and 267 Republicans; the Democrats recovered.
In 1960 there were 64 Senate Democrats and 34 Republicans, 283 House Democrats and 153 Republicans; the Republicans recovered.

Looking at the shifts of the past, the current division looks remarkably even (unless you are completely blinded by hatred and partisanship).

To the contrary, Democrats should have won back a lot of the seats they lost in 1994. By the standard of historical averages, in the 1998 midterm election, the Democrats should have won back 22 House seats. Instead they won only six seats. The average midterm loss this past century is 30 seats in the House. Clinton's average was 46.

The media billed the Democrats' paltry gain in 1998 as a victory for Clinton and revulsion with impeachment for the same reason they say Bush "stole" the presidential election. Liberals love to lie. (Someone should write a book about that.)

By contrast, in Bush's first midterm election this week, Republicans made spectacular gains all over the country. It was such a blow-out that over on CBS, Dan Rather had to keep retelling viewers about Sen. Lautenberg's victory in New Jersey. (Good thing Election Day finally came without another Democrat realizing the voters were on to him, or the Democrats might have had to unwrap Tutankhamen.)

Nearly equal popular vote. A "blow-out". Uh huh.

All night, victories rolled in for Republicans, even shocking victories no one had expected. They picked up seats in the House and Senate. Republicans won a double whammy with Democrat-target Jeb Bush winning in Florida and Kathleen Kennedy Townsend losing in Maryland. Democratic bete noire Katherine Harris won her congressional election. In stunning upsets, Republicans won the governorships in Hawaii and Georgia. The Republican juggernaut could not be stopped.

"Juggernaut." Some races remain undecided, but here are the counts:
Senate: 51 Republicans to 46 Democrats and 1 Independent aligned with the Democrats.
House: 227 Republicans to 203 Democrats and 1 Independent aligned with the Democrats
Governors: 24 Republicans to 23 Democrats (3 races remain undecided as I write this). And again, this is a gain in governorships for the Democrats.

Democrats may be forced to shut down operations as a party and re-enter politics under a different name. The party formerly known as "the Democratic Party" will henceforth be doing business under the name "the Abortion Party."

That would have the virtue of honesty. Love of abortion is the one irreducible minimum of the Democratic Party. Liberals don't want to go to war with Saddam Hussein, but they do want to go to war to protect Roe v. Wade.

A number of Republicans are pro-choice. A number of Democrats are opposed to abortion. These are facts.

Inasmuch as George Bush rather than Barbra Streisand will be picking our federal judges, even now liberals are sharpening their character assassination techniques. People for the American Way Ð representing Americans up and down the Malibu beachfront Ð are already lining up lying Anita Hills to accuse Bush's judicial nominees of lynching blacks and burning crosses.

This is precisely the sort of Clintonian viciousness that Americans indicated they were sick of on election night. The Democrats' motorcycle rally-cum-funeral in Minnesota for Paul Wellstone exposed the party's character in a pellucid, dramatic way. It was so revolting, people couldn't avert their eyes from the spectacle. The only moral compass liberals have is their own will to power. Even the deaths of three members of a family could not slow them down.

If the party formerly known as "the Democrats" don't like the factually correct "Abortion Party," how about "the Adultery Party"? Noticeably, the only incumbent Republican senator to lose was Tim Hutchinson of Arkansas, who left his wife for a staffer a few years ago. I'm proud to be a member of a party that still frowns on that sort of thing.

This is truly childish. We all know that many politicians from both parties have affairs. Power, as Henry Kissinger notoriously rumbled, is an aphrodisiac. The label "Adultery Party" is about as ad hominem and silly as one can get. We have descended to schoolyard name calling.

Moreover, as one reader (Ben) just pointed out to me, the GOP did not reject Hutchinson, they nominated him. It was the voters who rejected him.

The end result of a Democratic president being caught in an adulterous affair with an intern was: Two Republicans resigned from Congress. Meanwhile, the felon in the White House was revered as a latter-day George Washington by the Adultery Party. And consider that Newt Gingrich and Bob Livingston were mere congressmen. Bill Clinton, Teddy Kennedy, Jesse Jackson and Gary Hart are deemed presidential material by the Adultery Party.

What a miserable party. I'm glad to see their power end, and I'm sure they'll all be perfectly comfortable in their cells in Guantanamo. As Jesse Helms said on Ronald Reagan's election in 1980: God has given America one more chance.

Their cells in Guantanamo? How can one take this woman seriously? Why am I taking this woman seriously? Let me leave you all and get a nice cold Guinness from the fridge.

 


©2002 Carl Skutsch. All rights reserved.
All opinions expressed herein are those of the author unless otherwise noted

(and it goes without saying that they make more sense than Coulter's opinions.)

graphics & design by pixelforge