Stripping Them Bare: Coulter and Ingraham Represent the Party of DC

Two Ladies Who Love Their Polls(Poles?)

What you learn from watching the Republican party establishment flacks in the media is that they really don’t understand their own hypocrisy.  On Tuesday evening, sitting in for Bill O’Reilly, Laura Ingraham had Ann Coulter on the show to talk politics.  What they did was hammer Sarah Palin.  I knew it was coming, because O’Reilly is himself no Sarah Palin fan, and these two continued the establishment’s meme of “I like Sarah Palin, but…”  Bad as that might have been, Coulter took a crack at Sarah Palin’s supporters leveled at our passionate and faithful support.

In her view, we’re becoming tiresome because we continue to support a candidate, who in Coulter’s view, clearly isn’t running. The irony of a woman criticizing a politician’s supporters because the politician hasn’t as yet announced a campaign, who herself continues to agitate on behalf of a politician who has flatly stated he won’t run is a laughable demonstration of the exhausting lack of self-awareness on the part of Ann Coulter.

Ann Coulter also enjoyed pointing out polls that suggest Palin can’t win.  Apart from the fact that polls are mostly irrelevant so far from the election, I am reminded of Sarah Palin’s own view of polls, expressed at Saturday’s Tea Party rally saying:

“…usually I say polls, eh, they’re for strippers and cross country skiers .”

Ann looks neither athletic nor study enough to be a cross-country skier.

The two also got into a discussion of Sarah Palin’s voice.  Really?  Mentioning they have low voices, Ingraham went on to share a laugh with Coulter, but I’ve heard Ingraham herself attain higher octaves on the radio than she might care to admit. Once again, this is a completely superficial issue.  Mean girl syndrome? Perhaps, but these two continue to take slaps at Governor Palin, in shrill language if not voice, mainly because they are the GOP establishment’s representatives in the Lamestream Media. Fortunately for Ingraham, most are willing to overlook the nasal tone of her voice.


What I find stunning is this, and it reveals how thoroughly part of the establishment Coulter has become:  She acknowledges how the media has unfairly tried to destroy Sarah Palin in the  media.  Rather than fighting against lies and mis-characterizations of which she herself  has been a frequent object, she essentially concedes the point and suggests that Palin should simply accept this and return quietly to Alaska for a life in exile.

If all of this seems strange to you, it shouldn’t, because these two have a long record of being part of the establishment when it comes down to it.  Where the rubber meets the road, these two aren’t conservatives.  Given their recent behavior, I don’t trust them, because their judgments seem clouded by hypocrisy.  I can’t know their motives, but I know they’re not earnest because nobody can be so thoroughly wrong about an issue or a candidate accidentally.


Related Reading: Ingraham and Coulter, Hypocrite Much? – Adam Amick


Leave a comment ?

31 Responses to Stripping Them Bare: Coulter and Ingraham Represent the Party of DC

  1. Michael Carpenter says:

    Well Done Mark. well done.

  2. banshee says:

    I don't know what Fox's deal is lately. I know O'Reilly hates Palin;he always has. I don't he has much regard for women in general, and I used to like him. Coulter persists in making a fool of herself over Christie, who is still needed more here in NJ than he is in the WH. I'm not sure anymore that Palin is running next year, but if she isnt, her endorsements for Congressional seats may do conservatives throughout America more good than her gaining the Presidency in 2012.

  3. William Peck says:

    I love Ann Coulter, Laura Ingraham, and Sarah Palin.

    But all you do with this evisceration of anyone who bats an eye at Palin proves Ann's point.

    Do I agree with everything Ann says ? no. Laura ? No. Palin ? about 99.9% of the time.

    but taking out everyone who has an honest opinion of Palin is ridiculous. I love people who love Sarah, but this wild-eyed craze and knee-jerk reactions are simply what Ann is talking about.

    • MarkAmerica says:

      William, do you really think this is an evisceration? It's not an honest criticism by Coulter to go after Palin supporters for being diehard given her own diehard support of Chris Christie, a man who has repeatedly stated he will not run. If Palin's supporters are wild-eyed and knee-jerk, what does that make Coulter? I understand your point, but how honest is it to suggest that Palin should absorb undue punishment and then simply bow to it?

      I'd also offer this: After watching Palin being dishonestly trashed in the media for 3 years, why wouldn't people who support her begin to take offense at conservatives who now seem to be piling on with the libs?

      I'm sorry William, but I suppose we'll agree to disagree here. I don't see much honest criticism in the exchange these two had last night. Thanks! Mark

      • William Peck says:

        Like I said, you prove Ann's point. I do think her support of Christie is way flawed, and her position in GOP-Proud is disturbing to me.

        The points she makes are valid, I was once a Palinista, now I am just a big fan of her conservative credentials, her spunk, and her fortitude.

        you make the knee-jerk reaction (as Ann pointed out) that any negative criticism paints one as a RINO and a member of the cocktail establishment, as you indicate in your title.

        I wrote many positive articles on Sarah, including "where are the good men and women of this nation?" while she got sliced and diced by the left and the right said nothing. I too take offense at what they write about her. But now the point is that many people on the right simply ignore her because they don't want articles written about them, it's not worth it.

        I do love your work and keep wondering how you get all this stuff. I passed around your article about the left ("they love death") to many of my friends – that article is all one needs to know about our current situation.

        • MarkAmerica says:

          William, if responding to Coulter's hypocrisy is to prove her point, then at what point may anybody respond to any criticism? It simply doesn't make sense to say that I've been knee-jerk in pointing out Coulter's hypocrisy with respect to Christie, since as you admit, that's precisely what she's been. What you seem to suggest, seeking credibility as a former "Palinista," is that Palin supporters should simply shut up and let any criticism fly, no matter how hypocritical, and no matter how obtuse or irrelevant. Does a discussion of Palin's voice, for instance, do anything to advance conservatism? Does it? No. What sort of criticism is that? It's just another bit of ad hominem, little different from the attacks the left makes on Palin constantly. What you offer is that I shouldn't criticize these two for engaging in that sort of sorry form of criticism. William, at what point should anybody be permitted to criticize these two, since according to you, we should stand there and take it?

          Seriously. Name the sorts of criticisms to which Palin's defenders ought to respond. Go ahead. Shall we respond to hypocrisy? Libel? Lies? Slander? Mindless mockery? What is the threshold, so I can see the bright line? Or is it your contention that no criticism may be answered?

          You might recognize that I am precisely not guilty of "crazed knee-jerk" merely on the basis that I've been willing to discuss this with you…. You might realize that "crazed knee-jerk reactionaries" don't bother with debates, and merely hit the delete button. You might, but in two successive posts, that's not crossed your mind. Give it some thought, and get back to me. Mark

          You might try this:

          and this:

    • JohnInFlorida says:

      " … but taking out everyone who has an honest opinion of Palin …"

      I'm sorry but I must take issue with your use of the phrase "an honest opinion". It appears to me that both of these ladies are in the same category as Karl Rove and Dick Morris … advancing their opinion as an uncolored, objective analysis of Ms. Palin, rather than as an analysis that supports and advances their personal/hidden agenda.

      Mark, just keep on keeping on … good stuff!

    • I disagree.

      Laura has been a Mitt Romney devotee for at least two election cycles. Ann, of course, is deep in the weeds for Christie.

      So, what credibility to they have in telling Gov. Palin what she should or shouldn't do?

      It would be like a customer going to your competitor's most loyal customer and asking if he should do business with you or the competitor.

      As for we loyal Palin supporters. We won't be cowed. Palin detractors, lets put Laura and Ann in that camp too, all want to predetermine her fate for her. As Sarah has indicated she will make her decision by month's end, don't you think they and we owe her the courtesy of letting her decide her fate?

  4. banshee says:

    if Palin gets the GOP nomination I will vote for her. If not, I will hold my nose and vote for the GOP nominee. Getting Obama out of the WH is my first priority. And third party candidates do not win Presidential elections.

  5. Kate says:

    I can appreciate these ladies having their own opinion about Sarah. And maybe they are offended because they feel we are judging them for having an opposing opinion of Governor Palin. They both said, ANYONE who thinks they can add to beating Obama has a responsibility to get in the race. Did they mean anyone but Sarah? Maybe. But Then Ann said about Palin….Just get in the race. So their discussion was about being weary of the tease. They maybe do not understand. We do. This is where Sarah is the skilled hunter…..waiting as the target charges her…waiting. She only has one shot. She knows it must count. She will wait till she sees …the whites of their eyes and then. Boom.

    She's in. They will be impressed with her discipline, precision and political prowess.

  6. Bravo, Mark. I used to love Coulter's quick wit. She *can* be funny, but I've tired of her love of Chrisitie as I believe he is not the conservative savior those in the northeast think he is. Same with Perry. The media is painting him as a darling of the Tea Party. Really? That's not what I've been reading from tea party folk. We must urge conservatives to get on THAT train. But, I digress. back to the story above… Why does Dennis Miller (a Palin fan) chum around doing shows with sexist O'Reilly? is it because he has the number one viewed cable news channel show? Hannity has shown great respect for the Governor but latel has also been pushing Perry. Is Greta the only person left at Fox who will support and defend Sarah? Fox can't be trusted, anymore, I'm afraid. What if every single Palinista started boycotting Fox for being part of the LAME STREAM?

  7. Tony says:

    I have never found Ingraham enlightening or amusing. I can read the Drudge report myself, I don't need to hear Ingraham's nasal readings and uninspiring ramblings of said website.
    As far as that chubby chaser Ann Coulter goes, well, I have from time to time found her funny if a bit shallow on the issues.
    I always liked Palin and after seeing The Undefeated this weekend, I like her even more. Anyone who sees this will have to agree that she is not an intellectual lightweight. Her accomplishments as Governor alone will debunk that tired and intellectually lazy meme.

  8. William Peck says:


    Again, I'll repeat, any criticism of Palin by Palin fanatics is met with a fury of self-righteous that scorns and derides anyone who dares speak it. That's why conservatives don't touch it, and Ann's point is correct, as evidenced by the nerve I've touched with you.

    You know, I'm not "seeking credibility" as a former Palinista, as you condescendingly state, I'm am simply stating facts and giving you my perspective. I thought that would help the discussion. What turns me off is not Palin but Palin fans.

    And give me a break, I in no way say Palin fans should "shut up", where did you get that ? should I pull out my strong defenses. Have a look at my defense of Palin here

    And what turns off many people is when you and others take ANY form of criticism and label it "sorry form of criticism". Is there ever any criticism given against her that her fans say, "Well, you know, he's kind of right on that"? No, there isn't any.

    I read Legal Insurrection and also RedState, but Erick Erickson get's on my nerves big time, especially when he said "Sarah Palin would ruin her career" by speaking at the Tea Party Convention last year.

    I wouldn't call your response a discussion, more of a lecture.

    • William Peck says:

      Mark, here's another defense I wrote for Palin against Selwyn Duke. I can provide more if you like, such as my response to Peggy Noonan's article "Palin's Failin", written in fall 2008.

      Or my best piece, The Effect of Sarah Palin.

    • MarkAmerica says:

      William, I'm going to address several points with specific information.

      First, you repeat that "any criticism of Palin by Palin fanatics is met with a fury of self-righteous[ness] that scorned and derides anyone who dares speak it."

      Let's start there. I think you intended to say "…any criticism of Palin is met by Palin fanatics…" If I'm wrong, say so, but I am assuming that's what you meant to say, and I am going to proceed to answer you on that basis. The nerve you've touched with me is that you haven't explained which criticisms of Palin made by Ann Coulter were not simply garbage attacks. Please name them, specifically, and in context. I have no problem with people who will criticize on the basis of substance. What substance about Governor Palin did Ann Coulter address? Which substance about her supporters did Ann Coulter offer that sustains examination?

      Start with that.

      If you're not an anti-Palin person seeking credibility, my apologies, but I've had to deal with a number of such people over the last few months. They put on airs about liking Mrs. Palin, or "loving her to death," and then you find out they're not really supporters at all. I'll take a look at your articles as time permits.

      When I say "a sorry form of criticism," I'm talking specifically about ad hominem attacks and other fallacious forms of argumentation directed against anybody. Recently, I've written a number of articles about the problems I see with Rick Perry. That said, when some in the media began to use "a sorry form of criticism" in simply dismissing him as "dumb," I stood up and defended him. Why? I don't like Rick Perry. I might just as well have let that story stand. I did not. Instead, I took the occasion of the incident to rise to the defense of Rick Perry and others who are smeared as a matter of routine as less than intelligent. I explained, in substantial intent, that this was a "sorry form of criticism." I stand by that.

      I also wrote an article about how the fallacy of "who can win" is used to dismiss candidates, in this case particularly Sarah Palin, but in general, it's used against many of them, and I admitted my own error in having relied upon that faulty argument a time or two in the past. It's a "sorry form of criticism."

      Offer me a criticism of Palin based upon her record, or on something about what she's done. That's all I'm asking. You may make a whale of a point. I'll consider it, but I won't call it a "sorry form of criticism," even if I wind up disagreeing with your conclusions. What I heard discussed by Coulter and Ingraham were things like Palin's voice, her being a 'tease', a general disdain for her supporters on the basis you've specified, and a criticism of her not getting in yet, while one of the two very much supports a candidate who has said repeatedly he will not get in. I heard a reliance on a poll that is questionable at best, but also ignores certain facts even if it were true right this moment.

      What, which specific thing did either of them say that was not a "sorry form of criticism?" One more time, by that phrase, I mean something that has no basis in substance, policy, or record, but instead relies upon some sort of cheap smear. One more time for the record: What did either of these two say that was a substantial argument against or criticism of Sarah Palin?

      That's all you really need to do to demonstrate your point. Tell me where that wasn't the case. That's all. I don't think it unfair that if you're going to criticize what I've said, you explain the specific basis for that criticism, rather than rely upon vague implications about "crazed knee-jerk" responses. Which criticism by these two was not a "sorry form of criticism?" Simple….Mark

  9. William Peck says:


    the point of my response was based on what Ann said, "people don't criticize Palin because they get their heads handed to them". And that is the truth, look at the time you spent "setting me straight".

    If you glance at my links, you will understand better who you are dealing with.

    In fact, I can't think of one thing Palin has said or one position she's taken that I disagree with. In fact, I cheer her on.

    – she does have a screechy voice on the stump
    – she is playing this running game as a tease,
    – one CAN NEVER make ANY criticism of Palin and have it be "considered"
    – the recent Tea Party snafu on "she's not coming" was a disaster, but it's never her fault

    Also, your attitude is indicative of what Ann was talking about. It's haughty and dismissive and self-righteous.

    When I first started reading you, I saw someone who is right on on just about everything, including Palin. But the inability to take criticism is at the heart of my frustration (and reinforced by your reaction).

    • MarkAmerica says:

      William, You're right: I'm setting you straight. When Coulter said “people don’t criticize Palin because they get their heads handed to them," it was a criticism of Palin supporters.

      Have I handed you your head yet? More, it wasn't a criticism of Palin. It was a criticism of her supporters for their vigorous defense. What Coulter seems to want is immunity from response. Let me ask you again: Which criticism offered by Coulter of Sarah Palin wasn't a "sorry form of criticism?"

      You offer:
      "-she does have a screechy voice on the stump" Is that, or is that not a superficial criticism? Do you understand her words?
      "- she is playing this running game as a tease," You say so, but as I've explained, it's also a perfectly reasonable strategy. I guess we won't know which until she tells us, will we? In the mean time, what you(and others who make that statement) imply is something about her motive. Are you a mind reader as well?
      "- one CAN NEVER make ANY criticism of Palin and have it be “considered”" I'll consider any criticism not born of logical fallacy or pure ad hominem. Are you offering any? Ann surely didn't.
      "- the recent Tea Party snafu on “she’s not coming” was a disaster, but it’s never her fault" Do you have some insight as to where to lay blame? Tell me. I'd love to know. Myself, I can imagine all sorts of scenarios. Will I ever know to your satisfaction? Probably not.

      Lastly, you offer these:
      "Also, your attitude is indicative of what Ann was talking about. It’s haughty and dismissive and self-righteous." That's your conclusion. I disagree, but that's horse-racing.

      "When I first started reading you, I saw someone who is right on on just about everything, including Palin. But the inability to take criticism is at the heart of my frustration (and reinforced by your reaction)."
      I take criticism all the time. Check the comments sections of all my posts. Other than some of the profanity-filled responses I receive, which I delete, I try to make my arguments thoroughly. You've criticized me repeatedly here, whether I agree with your criticisms or not, and I've published them all. That's not something ordinarily undertaken by somebody who is unable to take criticism. Instead, I've merely disagreed with your criticisms, and at the end of it, you've managed to sustain my point, but not Coulter's. Thanks! Mark

      • Kate says:

        Wow- Great debate. Thanks fellas! I agreed with both of you as you went back and forth. It was very helpful for me. Because as Mr. Peck asked as Palin supporter I do concur with some of the criticisms. And as Mark points out they are superficial and lame. Bottom line, Sarah's record speaks for her and your discussion is helping me to learn how to defend Sarah's record. thanks Mr. Peck and Mr. America. God bless.

  10. Hello Mark:

    The ladies have a way of losing their fan base, losing book purchasers, and the like.

    I suspect they heard the spontaneous "Run Sarah Run" and wished it was them.

    There certainly appears to be a full court press by DC pundits and media to call this a two-way race were no one wants another entrant, as in Gov. Palin.

    This is all intended to dispirit Sarah's supporters. I don't think it will work.

  11. stevethird says:

    Sarah had a fantastic weekend. I saw her in NH. Helped set up a booth for her there. It was a teaparty event, but it was really a Palin event . Laura "Dartmouth' Ingraham and Ann "New Canaan" Coulter are of the Ruling class. We now see that they are as much a part of the broken system as the politicians of both parties. It is a sick and destructive parasitic symbiosis. Sarah by delaying candidacy, is causing all of these players to expose themselves. That is powerful! I also believe simple jealousy plays a large role in this.

  12. Mark, a little off-topic here, but I haven't been able to find any sales figures for Perry's book. I'd like to see how it compares with Sarah's. :-)

  13. Kara says:

    Bravo Mark.

    Coulter and Ingraham are clearly inside the beltway establishment republicans who are threatened by the *true* conservative and "outside" patriotic reformer/restorer Sarah Palin. Their comments were superficial, hypocritical and weak. They have shown their true colors in that they are not principled, truthful or conservative. No matter. It's just two more irrelevant media pundits to take with less than a grain of salt. For the most part, the only person I totally trust in broadcast media anymore is Mark Levin. The rest, not so much.

    Keep up the good work within the online sphere. Your voice is needed and appreciated.

  14. Stand Taker says:

    The convo between Coulter and Ingraham is an important reminder of the thin thinking SP, and we as her supporters, has to deal with. It's the brand of thought that got Obama elected.

    Excuse the obvious but SP is not a perfect candidate. No one is. She is the right candidate, however, and our goal is that a majority of voters understands this and doesn't employ the high school popularity contest voting of 2008.

    I'm concerned that a faction of the fervor for Sarah's candidacy might quasi-undermine the movement behind her. By that I simply mean the mist of support-her-in-this-precise-way-or-you're-not-really-a-supporter that lightly hangs over all of us who hopefully await her announcement. Sounds negligible but it could grow into something more sinister if we don't keep the focus on building out her support to as many as possible and not just to our already like-minded friends.

    As a longtime SP fan and supporter, my priority is to continue in that capacity and to be an ambassador for her. If people have concerns or misgivings about her – even including lighter fare like voice tone – I simply see it as an opportunity to make a counterargument. And, again, it's important to remember that we can't iron everyone out regarding Sarah nor should we desire to. The majority needed to elect her aren't all going to be 100% on board like we are. They just need to believe she is the right person for the job.

    Yes, there are plenty of Coulters and Ingrahams out there. It's part of the fight we fight. But I truly believe we're past the point where people like them are shaping the debate. The majority are tuning out people like them more every day because it's not in sync with the needs of reality. The most important of those needs is to elect a God-fearing, honest conservative who recognizes the moment we're in.

    Sarah, if you're reading this, seize it. We're with you.

  15. James says:

    MarkAmerica: You sir, are absolutely right on"
    Presentin, "President Sarah Palin"! Sure has a nice ring to it !!!

  16. johnannegalt says:

    William Peck, it seems as though you're setting yourself up for failure in this argument. You slam Mark America for taking the time to respond to you in detail, which doesn't make any sense- if you're going to criticize a person for superficial things such as their voice whilst claiming to have a serious complaint, you should expect such a response.

    Were you at the rally? Do you know who organized it? NOT Sarah Palin or SarahPAC. The event was a Tea Party of America rally, not a Sarah Palin rally. They were careful not to endorse her specifically, or any candidate for that matter. Attempting to blame her personally for an event organizer's fault and the media's enhancement of it is sorry. You claim to agree with her 99.9% of the time- what's the other .1%? You don't agree with the way her voice sounds when she gets passionate and fiery in her speeches? As a woman I can tell you it happens to many of us- hell, I've heard men get high pitched when speaking so passionately!

    You say that Mark America can't take criticism. Here on his blog I've seen him admit that he was wrong- when he truly was. The truth of the matter is, you're supporting Coulter's baseless smearing and mocking of a good woman based on her personal decisions which neither of you even know, and the sound of her voice. That's it. That's all you've got. It'd serve you well to remember that late entries have the advantage, and that Reagan did not announce until November 4th, 1979. :)

  17. Raymond says:

    Sarah Palin is a real smart fox!! With her delaying tactics, she is exposing her true enemies from within the GOP. They are now exposed as in the ART OF WAR by Sun Tzu!!! Hahahahaha!! It would be a very big mistake of the century if GOP/Republican will not choose Palin as the GOP nominee for 2012, as this will ensure second term for Obama. With Romney as the GOP nominee, Obama can rest assure that he does not need much effort to win the 2012 re-election. Ann Coultier and Laura Ingraham made blunders from their recent attacks against Palin. Sarah Palin had 100 loyal legions under her command, and if these legions were get frustrated because Palin lost the GOP nomination because of unfair attacks from within, they might for sure decide not to vote and will just let Obama win the re-election, who loses then??

  18. Raymond says:

    I am not a fan of Sarah Palin, but let me tell you one thing. Both Laura ingraham and Ann Coultier are both stupid idiots. They know nothing about the art of war in politics because their mouths are faster than their minds. Sarah Palin is doing the right thing….delaying tactics and know first and expose your real enemies!! Look what happened last night at GOP debate…it was kind of laughable, where each of them are attacking each other like children and they cannot concentrate on attacking a common enemy who is Obama. I bet Obama and his cohorts as well as the MSNBC are just laughing watching these so called seven dwarfs of the GOP. Sarah Palin may become the GOP nominee, after all….

Trackbacks and Pingbacks: