Ann Coulter and the Insufferable Establishment Intelligentsia

I don’t know when it happened. Maybe it was always the case, and I had never noticed because Ms. Coulter was saying something at the time with which I agreed, but lately, I’ve noticed she and others in the Northeast corridor establishment Intelligentsia seem to have lost their collective minds. Don’t get me wrong, as I am the owner of more than one of Ms. Coulter’s excellent books. It’s simply that since she became enamored of Governor Christie, she seems incapable of refraining from pushing him to the detriment of other Republican, and particularly, conservative candidates. Yesterday, she went as far as suggesting that Sarah Palin run for retiring Senator Jon Kyl’s seat in Arizona, rather than run for President. She as much as declared that Mitt Romney will be the nominee. I’d hate to get into an argument with the unofficial Republican Siren of record, but since when was she appointed arbiter of GOP nominations and nominees?

In an interview by Sean Hannity, she said “I think she’s saying that because she also said Newt Gingrich told her you can get higher speaking fees if you pretend you are running for President.” Now Ms. Coulter feels the need to impute dishonest motives to Governor Palin?

Now I realize there is some chance that Ms. Coulter could wind up being right about the nomination, but what troubles me here is her dismissal of Governor Palin: “I think she should run for Senate or something,” and followed up with: “she’s a great voice for conservatism; why bother running for president?”

Don’t get me wrong, as I believe Arizona is a fine state with many virtues, but who is Ms. Coulter to banish Sarah Palin to Arizona? I’m sorry, but last I knew, my vote counts just as heavily as the vote of a New York moderate Republican.

Ms. Coulter seems to miss the larger point, as she spends a good deal of her time sweeping the long blond locks from her face: I, a real conservative, one who doesn’t spend time at cocktail parties or among the New York glitterati, will never, ever, under any conceivable circumstance, cast a vote for a Mitt Romney, or a Chris Christie. Oh sure, they’re probably both fine fellows, but they’re just too damned liberal. There, I’ve said it!

Both are global warming kooks, and while Mitt will undoubtedly show up somewhere shooting at clay pigeons with an expensive shotgun, he and Chris Christie are gun-grabbers too. The truth is that these two, in particular, are simply big government Republicans, of the same mold as George W. Bush, or worse. How did that work out? Americans, still nervous about terrorism only 3 years after 9/11, gave Bush a second term, and only barely. By the end of his second term, most Americans would have been glad to hold the door for him upon his exit from the oval office, and give him a good shove besides. Of course, most conservatives tempered that feeling with the realization of the truly wicked imbecile about to take up occupancy in that office.

George Bush was not without his virtues, but his reflexes to big government solutions showed clearly in the aftermath of 9/11. The entire TSA and Department of Homeland Security fiasco, combined with some of the more objectionable portions of the Patriot Act serve as clear reminders that big government, once created, seems to hang on and grow, forever. The same is true of his Medicare Prescription Drug Plan. That and his surrenders to Teddy Kennedy on education essentially provided the proof of my thesis: George Bush was a big government Republican who thought he could make nice with the establishment types via ‘compromise’, which in his decidedly french understanding meant approximately: “wave the white flag when confronted by liberals.” Sure, al-Qaeda, he’d fight. Saddam? Oh, he dealt with Saddam, but Ted Kennedy and Chris Dodd ran rings around him, unopposed.

I’ve got a small newsflash for Ms. Coulter, and she may want to pay close attention: This coming election season is not a time for French reflexes by Republicans. (I can say this knowing half my gene set derives from French heritage and thankfully it surrendered to the fighting spirit of the other half of my ancestors.) In truth, 2012 stands not as a year for more whining, half-measuring simpletons who believe in conservatism only when they need conservatives’ votes. 2012 is a year like 1980, when only an actual conservative can rescue the country from the country-clubbers and the Duffer-in-Chief. Let me make it more plain: I would rather Obama take the nation down than to elect another ‘non-con-poop’ who would manage to further associate conservatives with a collapse he’d be no more apt or willing than Obama to prevent.

The truth is, while I enjoy Ann Coulter when she’s in pursuit of liberal stupidity and treason, I’ve lost patience for her willingness to tolerate the same behavior on our side, particularly by one of its stealthier purveyors. Ms. Coulter, you can join the parade or watch it go by from the curb. Whomever the Republicans select in 2012, if it’s a RINO, they’ll have to elect him without me.


Comments are closed.