Coulter jabs Obama at CPAC
March 1, 2009

Conservative political commentator Ann Coulter’s 15-minute address at CPAC played more like a stand-up comedy act than a political speech. Coulter delivered line after line of jabs at President Obama, the Democratic Party and the media – each met with roaring laughter from the crowd. The commentator – who is no stranger to controversy – first went after MSNBC, calling the hosts the “alternative prom crowd.”

Pointing to recent comparisons of Obama to Jesus and Abraham Lincoln, Coulter said the media has turned from being the people’s watchdog to the “government guard dog.” “Maybe it’s just me, but I can’t see Lincoln text messaging with Scarlet Johansson … and I forget, how many times did Lincoln vote present?” she said, to much applause. Coulter likened members of the media and Democrats to parents “gushing” over a newborn baby.

“Having pulled off their rather mediocre 53 percent to 46 percent victory, liberals can’t stop boasting about their new baby boy,” she said. She said it was interesting that Obama’s “adorers” in the media compare him to Lincoln and Ronald Reagan, because, “apparently they can’t think of a Democratic president worthy of being compared to.”

“If [Obama] thinks people wanted change in 2009, wait until 2012,” she said.

I was kind of proud of only vaguely following things at the beach, but the last three days were grey and windy, so there was some channel surfing looking for mindless movies. And what should appear but CSPAN covering the Conservative Political Action Committee meeting in Washington, and I lingered occasionally. Last night, his fatitude, Rush Limbaugh was on as I passed by, but I missed Long Tall Sally [Ann Coulter].

Limbaugh was horrible, as one might predict – likening "Liberalism" to a "psychosis." It was a nasty version of Karl Roves famous speech to the New York Conservatives several years ago in which he predicted the death of Liberalism forever. I never really know what they’re talking about when they talk about Liberalism, it’s such a Straw Man argument [1][2][3][4]. Essentially, they create a caricature of their target du jour which is absurd and then point out the absurdities. Rove focused on a MoveOn.ORG petition asking for calm in the wake of 9/11 – in retrospect the best possible advice. Rove turned it into an absurd plea for empathic understanding of the Terrorists, instead of what it was – a plea for the President not to go off half cocked [which he did with disasterous results]. The Straw Man argument is a classical political strategy, but particularly virulent in the hands of Karl Rove and his proteges. Limbaugh was rolling them off so fast last night I can’t even recall what he said.

Coulter, on the other hand, doesn’t bother with logical fallacies. She goes directly to mockery and contempt. I don’t know if she’s just a nasty person, a dumb person, or maybe just lazy – because her mockery isn’t even very factual. Just an example. In 2000, it was Bush 47.9%  and Gore 48.4%. In 2004, it was Bush 50.7% and Kerry 48.3%. So Coulter says, "Having pulled off their rather mediocre 53 percent to 46 percent victory…" Looks good to me, 53%! And, said Coulter in 2004, "Bush won the largest popular vote in history with a 3.5 million margin. Indeed, simply by getting a majority of the country to vote for him – the left’s most hated politician since Richard Nixon – Bush did something ‘rock star’ Bill Clinton never did. Bush maintained or increased his vote in every state but Vermont." Yet she ignores Obama’s margin of victory –  9.5 million. Like I said – nasty, dumb, or lazy [or all of the above].

But back to Dogmatism – it means a belief that there are absolute truths. The Republicans believe that there are absolute truths – small government, low taxes, military prowess, free markets, etc. They also believe that people who oppose them are wedded to ideas like Communism, Socialism, big spending, high taxes, government control, welfare states, etc. For a Dogmatist, the opposite of Dogmatism is some other kind of Dogmatism.

What the cynics fail to understand is that the ground has shifted beneath them — that the stale political arguments that have consumed us for so long no longer apply. The question we ask today is not whether our government is too big or too small, but whether it works — whether it helps families find jobs at a decent wage, care they can afford, a retirement that is dignified. Where the answer is yes, we intend to move forward. Where the answer is no, programs will end. And those of us who manage the public’s dollars will be held to account — to spend wisely, reform bad habits, and do our business in the light of day — because only then can we restore the vital trust between a people and their government…

B. Obama, January 20, 2009