Yesterday’s Ebola column by Ann Coulter was priceless. Factual, well-reasoned, incisive, witty, non-polemical. (I wouldn’t change a word.)
Entitled “Your ‘to do’ list to save America,” Ann addressed the upcoming elections with insight, wit, and vigor. I thoroughly enjoyed her literary style (while disagreeing with a few of her points). It was well written and engaging, with a good overall structure, and it adroitly expressed her intended message with flair. Forceful, yet restrained.
Coulter opened with the need to “swing the Senate to Republican control,” then, in her second paragraph, wrote my favorite sentence in this column:
“Turn that into a mnemonic, sew it on needlepoint pillows, include it in your wedding vows, right-wingers.” Beautiful imagery, quaint, to the point, with a cascading effect which lends a subtle sense of mounting urgency.
Coulter concluded her paragraph:
“For the next six weeks, nothing matters more to the country than Republicans taking a majority in the Senate. When it comes to politics, conservatives need to learn one thing from liberals: All that matters is winning.”
Next, she handily handicapped key Senate races in a straightforward, yet interesting and compelling way.
Below, Coulter’s parenthetical (restrained) rebuke of Republicans was an “I told you so” without saying “I told you so.” She wrote:
“(Take a moment to notice something, Republicans: No incumbent Democrat had to deal with a primary challenger this year. That’s one reason why Democrats win more elections than their insane ideas would seem to dictate. Liberals understand that you can’t do anything if you don’t win, so Democrats don’t stage primary fights against other Democrats.)”
Ann next gave us all “assignments.” The first was for Sen. Pat Roberts to campaign nonstop to victory. In another dig at the GOP, she again chided, “I don’t know why Roberts got a primary challenge at all. Please stop doing that, Republicans.”
Coulter emphasized the need to flip enough “Democratic seats to take a majority in the Senate,” then, beautifully added, “Hopefully, the GOP will take more than three, and store them like chestnuts for a long, cold winter.”
Her second assignment was for all Americans to support Scott Brown’s candidacy (twice linking to his website): “Donate. Right now!” A sense of urgency conveyed in brevity.
“The biggest current danger for Republicans,” Coulter correctly cautioned, is that Libertarians will jeopardize key elections by wasting their votes on Libertarian candidates who cannot win. As she put it, “When we’re all dying from lack of health care across the United States of Mexico, we’ll be deeply impressed with your integrity, libertarians.”
Though not “priceless” like yesterday’s column, this one – despite its imperfections – is eminently commendable.
 Ann Coulter, “We’ll tell you how dangerous Ebola is after the election,” 10/15/14.
 Ann Coulter, “Your ‘to do’ list to save America,” 9/17/14.
 While I disagree with some of her conclusions, her presentation was excellent. It was a thoroughly enjoyable read, except for the elimination rhetoric in the very last phrase. (Some habits die hard.) (I would also have chosen words other than “insane” and “idiots,” though, perhaps I am getting too picky.) But for a nuts-and-bolts let’s-get-down-to-the-details election analysis, it was top notch, and, again, an enjoyable read. Consider it an unpolished diamond.
 My dear readers, you are urged to read the entirety of her column. Her analysis of each race is informative and her writing style is very appealing, making what some might regard as a boring, inside-the-beltway subject actually interesting.
 Here’s why, Ann. Coulter’s supreme reluctance to primary less conservative GOP candidates – which has caused a rift between Coulter and the Tea Party – stems from a somewhat flawed grasp of the dynamics involved. Ann seems to think that all Republicans will actually vote Republican (or conservative, which is not the same thing), when history shows that recent Republican congresses have raised taxes, increased spending, enacted new entitlement programs, and toyed with amnesty. We need more conservatives (not more Republicans) in office. Hence the need to challenge recalcitrant incumbents.
 Another well-worded nugget, accurate in this instance. It is noteworthy that Ann criticizes Libertarians for holding on to their “integrity” in the face of defeat (and thus squandering their votes), just as she has in the past blamed electoral defeat on pro-lifers who were “too” pro-life (integrity, again) or Tea Party candidates for being too principled (again, integrity).