The World O' Crap Archive

Welcome to the Collected World O' Crap, a comprehensive library of posts from the original Salon Blog, and our successor site, (2006 to 2010).

Current posts can be found here.

Saturday, January 29, 2011

So, You Want to be Ann Coulter?

Yes, it’s time once again for “So, You Want to be Ann Coulter?,” the game show that gives the average wingnut the chance to compete for the opportunity to become the new Ann Coulter (the old one having become so stale and unpalatable that she had to be thrown out).So, let’s meet our contestants for today.

1. First up is Steven T. Voigt, “a lawyer with a premier law firm that has offices throughout the United States and Europe.” In his talent number, “Senator Rick Santorum attacked on-line with vulgar language by rabid left-wingers and a personal message to the senator’s opponent regarding this slander,” he will defend Rick Santorum and malign liberals.
Warning — mature content that is not appropriate for minors –
Uh oh. Okay, all you minors, stop reading right this minute!
In the upcoming fall elections for U.S. Senate, Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum, a stalwart leader on moral conservative issues, is arguably the number one target of extreme left-wing groups and individuals across the nation who feverishly hope that he can be defeated by challenger Bob Casey. As evidence of this, all you need to do is run a Google search for the Senator. I think you will be shocked to discover that one of the first results listed in your search is a web-site that posts the following statement on its welcome page:
Definition: Santorum
Pronunciation: san-TOR-um
Function: noun
Etymology: Savage Love
1. The frothy mix of lube and fecal matter that is sometimes the byproduct of anal sex.
2. Senator Rick Santorum
Sorry Steven, having used the Internet on at least one previous occasion, I’m not shocked at all. However, I do want to point out that the fact that Rick “Man-Dog love” Santorum has been the target of online japes does not prove that he’s anyone’s number one target – in fact, based on the evidence you provided, he seems to be more of a “number two” target.
This libel is childish and disgusting, but frankly, it is not unexpected from the left.
Because “childish and disgusting” is their middle name.
As I have pointed out in past editorials, the loudest voices of the extreme left tend to also be those who are the most unbalanced personally.
Clearly, anybody who uses the Internet to say anything uncomplimentary about Ricky is unbalanced personally, and should probably be committed — because only a crazy person wouldn’t love Ricky!
Senator Santorum is a statesman who deserves the support and prayers of every values voter in Pennsylvania and all across America. We conservatives have few who we could say are better advocates for us in Capitol Hill than Rick Santorum.
Aw, poor conservatives! That is just so sad.
As for the radicals who continue to slander the Senator with such vile language, you are doing an excellent job to highlight that you have nothing productive or civil to add to public discourse and that your strange views are wildly out-of-touch with Pennsylvania and America.
Yeah! Normal Americans know that “Santorum” is actually the name of the psychiatric condition wherein sufferers take home miscarried fetuses and make their young children kiss and cuddle them.(BTW, those dangerous radicals at Spread Santorum haven’t updated their site for over two years, so Steven’s job here is done. Two years ago.)
If it were not for my concern that children could be harmed by your on-line expletives, I would urge you to continue to trumpet your weird ideas.
Readers, you job is to guess which words in the passage cited by David he considers to be expletives (I’m going to guess “frothy,” “fecal,” and “sex”).

And just imagine how reading those words could harm the children!
Given this concern, however, I certainly hope that the candidate whom you support, Senator Santorum’s opponent, Bob Casey, will do the right thing and ask you to cease circulating this verbiage where minors are able to view it.
And if Bob Casey doesn’t make sure that every uncomplimentary remark about Ricky that exists on the Internet is erased, then clearly he endorses it all, engages in anal sex, and molests children.

But the key things to remember are: Rick Santorum is a great American, and liberals are the scum of the earth. These are sentiments that the old Ann Coulter would certainly applaud. So, a fine debut for Steven Voigt.

2. Our next contestant is Gabriel Garnica, Esq., a “conservative Latino college professor working in New York City.” To demonstrate his Coulteresque credentials, Mr. Garnica will malign liberals in an entry called “What Liberals Want to Be When They Grow Up.”.
Liberals want children to be exposed to sex, violence, and everything else as a way of asserting their so-called rights. They want kids to act, think, and learn as adults do. Their public schools treat children as if they were miniature adults, promoting imbecilic notions of education and learning that assume that giving kids greater freedom and less restraints actually results in better adults.
In contrast, the public schools of conservatives treat children as if they were property, as God intended.
As a former public school teacher I have seen groups of sixth graders pretending to discuss complex traits of characters in books whose themes are anything but innocent.
Making 12-year-olds pretend to discuss the complex traits of characters in books with non-innocent themes (such as Huck Finn or the Bible) is just plain wrong!
Having raised children as miniature, confused, arrogant, and demanding adults, liberals then help those same children move into a physical adulthood still yearning for that childhood lost. Liberals will therefore tell adults that they can live as they wish without regard for responsibility, duty, morality, values, patriotism, gratitude, and respect.

They will sell these adults hungry for play the adult toys they will need to pursue lives of wanton lust, mindless hedonism, and blatant irresponsibility.
While the old Ann Coulter might have thought it necessary to provide at least a couple examples of liberal irresponsibility, lust, and hedonism (or at least dropped the names “Bill Clinton” and “Ted Kennedy” into the mix), Gabriel believes that his statements are self-evident, and so no proof (or invocations of Juanita Broaddrick) are required. An interesting strategy. Let’s see if it pays off for him.

Anyway, here’s his summary:
At the end of the day, liberals see adulthood as an overgrown childhood where immaturity is painted as nostalgia, arrogance is painted as assertion, and irresponsibility is depicted as freedom of expression. The adulthood of liberals presents the image of overgrown toddlers munching on wine and cheese, discussing superficial and trivial matters, or pretending to save the world with their version of truth and values.
The judges have awarded him bonus points for having his liberals munch wine and cheese. But will his effort be strong enough to beat Steven? Your votes will decide the matter.

3. Our third contestant, Jim Kouri, is “president of the National Association of Chiefs of Police,” and he has appeared on “The Oprah Winfrey Show, CNN, MTV, and Fox News.” His entry, “Valerie Plame’s Lawsuit Is a Huge Mistake…For Valerie Plame” discusses not only the Plame lawsuit, but also the stupidity of liberals.
I’ve said it once and I’ll say it again: liberals make some really stupid decisions. It’s because, for the most part, they act out of their emotions rather than from logic.
They should be more like conservatives, who act out of reptilian self-interest.
A perfect example is a breaking news story that is part of the ongoing saga of the CIA Leak Case.
While Jim’s analysis of the lawsuit (and the Plame case) is chock-full o’wingnuttery, in the interests of time, we’re going to limit him to one paragraph.
A two-year investigation by a special prosecutor came up with nothing. Nothing. Unless you count an indictment against a top Cheney aide, Lewis “Scooter” Libby, last year on charges of obstruction of justice and perjury. In fact, it was the investigation that created the indictment, not the subject of the special prosecutor’s probe. In other words, there was no crime committed until the investigation into that non-crime occurred.
I find this interesting reasoning from a Chief of Police. If we might expand Jim’s reasoning to another case, I guess he would claim since the FBI couldn’t nail Al Capone for anything but tax evasion, it meant that Capone was no gangster, and the government had wasted years investigating a common tax cheat.

Now for Jim’s summary:
The fact of the matter is that the Democrats want to keep this story alive in spite of not getting their archenemy Karl Rove indicted. The prosecutor tried, but being an honorable guy he realized–although he hasn’t said it bluntly–that this CIA Leak Case was a lot of Hoodoo. You see Democrat Party liberals are only interested in probing leaks that don’t harm national security. You know–the ones that actually help the enemy and hurt the country.
One of the old Ann Coulter’s favorite claims (but she usually says it more colorfully, and specifies the manner of execution that should be used to punish them for their treason). I suspect that Jim’s lack of originality is going to hurt him, but it will be up to you, the viewers, to determine. (Plagiarism is a staple of the old Ann, so maybe this was a crafty ploy on Jim’s part.)

4. Our final contestant, Don Feder, is “currently making a modest living as a political/media consultant and free-lance writer.” To demonstrate his Coulter credentials he will defame liberals and laud Ann Coulter in an entry called Ann Coulter Makes Liberals Screech and Hurl Invective.”
Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, the former enabler-in-chief who spent most of her married life plotting to destroy the reputations of women who accused her predator-husband, ran to give the Jersey Girls a big hug. “Perhaps her (Coulter’s) book should have been called ‘Heartless,’” the lady widely known for her warmth and humanity sneered.
But Coulter’s comments about the Jersey Girls weren’t gratuitous. She devoted a chapter in her book to the way the left picks spokesmen whose suffering is supposed to immunize them from criticism–Cindy Sheehan, Nick Berg’s father, Christopher Reeve, the Jersey Girls, etc.
So, now that you see the context of Ann’s remarks, her comments about the widows being harpies who enjoyed their husbands’ deaths weren’t offensive at all!
Besides the fact that she loves America and doesn’t sound like a raving lunatic [sic], here are the essential differences between Coulter and Churchill: 1) Coulter isn’t paid by Colorado taxpayers; 2) Students aren’t forced to sit in a classroom and listen to her; (Actually, no one is forced to listen to her) and 3) Professors aren’t getting all weepy while defending her academic freedom.
College students were actually forced (presumably at gunpoint) to sign up for Churchill’s class, and then held in a classroom and made to listen to him? Somebody should check into that! (They should also ascertain how much Ann was payed by Colorado taxpayers to speak at CO colleges – I’d guess that she made as much for her one or two speeches as Churchill did in a whole year.)
Admittedly, conservatives give as good as they get. The difference between us that we can argue as well as inveigh. They can only hurl invectives and them is.
Because liberals can’t debate, they are forever telling us that on certain issues “the debate is closed”–words I’ve never heard from a conservative.
And I’ve never heard these words from a liberal. But I guess my anecdotal evidence doesn’t disprove Don’s claim that liberals are always saying this, because he obviously knows more about liberals than I do.
Coulter’s book now is #1 on The New York Times Best Sellers List. Clearly, we need a government program to force book-buyers to purchase liberal tracts.
Hey, Don, any real liberal is going to tell you that Scaife is free to waste his money bulk-buying whatever books he wants.
As a survival skill in the political arena that liberals shaped, conservatives have learned verbal street-fighting. But at least we’re not hypocrites. We don’t sucker-punch the other guy and then start whining about the appalling lack of civility when he hits back.
So, apparently the Jersey girls sucker punched Ann by having husbands who were killed in 9/11, and now they’re just whining when Ann smacks them back. Got it.

Anyway, not a bad job – the obligatory mention of at least one Clinton, the reference to Ward Churchill as if he were a major player on the liberal side, and the claim that conservatives are being victimized at the hands of big, mean, wimpy liberals were all nicely done.

But that’s just my opinion – it’s up to YOU, the viewer (or reader, rather) to make the call.

So, who will be this week’s New Ann Coulter? Your votes will decide the matter.

And what will we do with the old one? Your votes may help determine that too.