Ann Coulter said:

“The swing voters—I like to refer to them as the idiot voters because they don’t have set philosophical principles. You’re either a liberal or you’re a conservative if you have an IQ above a toaster. “—Beyond the News, Fox News Channel, 6/4/00

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2001/0111.coulterwisdom.html)
[selected quotes]

Ann Coulter, who wrote in a syndicated column on September 12 that in responding to terrorists “we should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity.”

the following week, Coulter was at it again: “Congress could pass a law tomorrow requiring that all aliens from Arabic countries leave….We should require passports to fly domestically. Passports can be forged, but they can also be checked with the home country in case of any suspicious-looking swarthy males.”

What’s curious is that Coulter’s comments aren’t all that different, in tone and style, from hundreds of others she’s made over the years. But in the past, her ire was directed at her domestic political enemies—for which she drew fulsome praise from conservatives.

here are some of Coulter’s past comments:

“[Clinton] masturbates in the sinks.”—Rivera Live 8/2/99

“God gave us the earth. We have dominion over the plants, the animals, the trees. God said, ‘Earth is yours. Take it. Rape it. It’s yours.’”—Hannity & Colmes, 6/20/01

The “backbone of the Democratic Party” is a “typical fat, implacable welfare recipient”—syndicated column 10/29/99

To a disabled Vietnam vet: “People like you caused us to lose that war.”—MSNBC

“Women like Pamela Harriman and Patricia Duff are basically Anna Nicole Smith from the waist down. Let’s just call it for what it is. They’re whores.”—Salon.com 11/16/00

Juan Gonzales is “Cuba’s answer to Joey Buttafuoco,” a “miscreant,” “sperm-donor,” and a “poor man’s Hugh Hefner.”—Rivera Live 5/1/00

“I think there should be a literacy test and a poll tax for people to vote.”—Hannity & Colmes, 8/17/99

“I think [women] should be armed but should not [be allowed to] vote.”—Politically Incorrect, 2/26/01

“If you don’t hate Clinton and the people who labored to keep him in office, you don’t love your country.”—George, 7/99

“We’re now at the point that it’s beyond whether or not this guy is a horny hick. I really think it’s a question of his mental stability. He really could be a lunatic. I think it is a rational question for Americans to ask whether their president is insane.”—Equal Time

“It’s enough [to be impeached] for the president to be a pervert.”—The Case Against Bill Clinton, Coulter’s 1998 book.

“I think we had enough laws about the turn-of-the-century. We don’t need any more.” Asked how far back would she go to repeal laws, she replied, “Well, before the New Deal…[The Emancipation Proclamation] would be a good start.”—Politically Incorrect 5/7/97

“If they have the one innocent person who has ever to be put to death this century out of over 7,000, you probably will get a good movie deal out of it.”—MSNBC 7/27/97

“The presumption of innocence only means you don’t go right to jail.”—Hannity & Colmes 8/24/01

“I have to say I’m all for public flogging. One type of criminal that a public humiliation might work particularly well with are the juvenile delinquents, a lot of whom consider it a badge of honor to be sent to juvenile detention. And it might not be such a cool thing in the ‘hood to be flogged publicly.”—MSNBC 3/22/97

“The thing I like about Bush is I think he hates liberals.”—Washington Post 8/1/00

“The swing voters—I like to refer to them as the idiot voters because they don’t have set philosophical principles. You’re either a liberal or you’re a conservative if you have an IQ above a toaster. “—Beyond the News, Fox News Channel, 6/4/00

“My libertarian friends are probably getting a little upset now but I think that’s because they never appreciate the benefits of local fascism.”—MSNBC 2/8/97

“You want to be careful not to become just a blowhard.”—Washington Post 10/16/98

Sorry my comments tend to run long. I’ll try to be shorter in the future.

If it wasn’t clear, “drunk” was a metaphor with unintended allusions. I think you’re right – we look at the decisions, based on (a) what we thought we knew then, and (b) what we know now.

1. What we thought we knew then:

This is normally a play about WMD. To me, what is disheartening about Bush (to be fair, also true about Dems, and the media) is that he even used the phrase WMD. We have no reason to fear anything but nukes. Nukes – or the production of them – leave a signature, as I understand it. A nuke program in Iraq (i) we would have known about, and (ii) we could have trusted the Israelis to handle, since it’s a greater risk to them.

2. What we know now

At a minimum, we know that this Administration is no better at ferretting out the truth than anyone else (and worse, apparently, then Howard Dean). So at least we can dismiss any claim of superiority in this area as a reason to keep them on. Given that they held fast to certain ideas throught the election (Cheney), I think we can make considerable arguments beyond that.

3. General Competence

I was really talking about the way in which we evaluate claims in an imperfectly modeled world, and in turn evaluate the claimers. I think you look to see if (a) things are internally consistent in models, and (b) if the models are at variance with commonly understood “facts”. So, for example, if the Bush Administration wants a tax cut for stimulus, then you would think that it should be structured for maximum velocity of money – toward the lower end. Furthermore, you can argue that if the downturn was the result of most economic pain in America, and it was the result of either 9/11 or a bubble, then, as it was no one’s fault, you would think you would structure the cuts to help those most likely to be hurt – middle class or below – absent other rationalizations. You can’t argue that you wanted to give money to the investing class, because money was (and is) relatively cheap.

How do we declare that anyone was drunk? Except to beg the question.

First, people who went to see the movie but bought a ticket for another movie wouldn’t be counted in Moore’s grosses. Over and above those people, he had record ticket sales for a documentary. Furthermore, he has consistently had those kinds of sales, while other documentary makers have not.

I doubt you can get those kinds of record box office grosses based simply on people checking out the enemy. If you hate Moore, you can rely on your favorite media source to tell you about the movie without having to waste 2 whole hours watching it.

I live in a red state, and was intrigued by the advertising that theater’s used — they used the review from the Fox movie critic who called this a must see patriotic movie. I’m sure people knew who Moore was. But the point is that he is a credible enough populist that people were perfectly willing to believe that he had made a patriotic movie. If that’s so, then it’s hard to believe that he lost the election for Kerry.

Ennis, thanks, as always, I think people went to see his movie because they wanted to see what all the fuss was about. Here too he’s higher profile than Coulter. In fact, I heard of people paying for one movie at a cinaplex and slipping into Moore’s…in order to make sure he didn’t get the sale! These people were clearly there to sus out the enemy and not to applaud him. And I am betting the came out redoubled in their political intentions.

Some Call Me Tim, wow, nelly, nice one. Interesting to hear about the centrist Dems. But I think I hear a small refrain of I know better. The waitress in question should get that the guy comes in drunk and if she doesnt… But what if she doesnt see it that way? Or doesnt care. This is the reason she wants less government…because they always come in drunk all the time. We need to rebuild her confidence in what government does, not find her wanting. As to the last question, my post today tries to get at what rebuilding might look like. Like I would now. Thanks for a great post. Best, Grant

Scott, I missed the Frontline piece. The thing that kills me about the Right’s hostility for the cultural policy is that it seems to me that it represents a very Christian practice and the exercise of the generosity that is the defining feature of the church, at least by my naive reckoning. But then that was the point of Varities of Religious Experience, I think: that Christ would not be welcome in at least some of the institutions that bear his name. Thanks, Grant