Monthly Archives: December 2014

Ann Coulter’s Plagiarism Cover-up 2014

It is well-known but underreported that Ann Coulter committed plagiarism with the publication of her first book, High Crimes and Misdemeanors. Even today, Coulter denies doing so. However, a recent interview with a Coulter colleague leads to the inescapable conclusion that Coulter did, in fact, use the words and research of Michael Chapman and that she has never given him credit for his contribution to her very first best-selling book.

On July 15, 2014, I published a column chastising Coulter for daring to falsely accuse a National Review columnist of plagiarism. At that time, I brought up Coulter’s own plagiarism in 1998. That night, I briefly interviewed Mark LaRochelle, columnist for Human Events, about a number of matters unrelated to plagiarism.

Plagiarist02

The next morning, we continued our interview. I initiated the chat and he said he would be right back. A few minutes later he returned. It quickly became apparent that Coulter was coaching him. He was more reserved, not as forthcoming as he had been the previous evening. The relevant portions are provided below with annotated endnotes.

July 16, 2014

Daniel Borchers

Have you seen my essay, “Ann Coulter Falsely Accuses Journalist of Plagiarism” at http://t.co/lig5hQLg5S? If so, what are your thoughts?

Mark LaRochelle

No.

Daniel Borchers

Would you mind checking it out and giving me your thoughts? As a member of the Human Events team, you might be able to provide some insight.

Mark LaRochelle

I know Chapman.

We talked about the dispute. I understand his frustration.

Daniel Borchers

What did Chapman say to you?

Mark LaRochelle

He wanted Coulter to give him something more for his articles from which she had copied passages.[1] Instead she removed him from the acknowledgements.[2]

Daniel Borchers

Do you mean that he wanted payment of some kind?

Mark LaRochelle

I don’t know the details. I think Coulter had paid him something for research.[3] He may have wanted co-author (or “with”) credit or something.

Daniel Borchers

Do you think it was right for Coulter to fail to ever publicly acknowledge his contribution to her book? To claim that she wrote every word of it? To even deny ever having heard of his name? To threaten lawsuits against those publishing reports about it?

Mark LaRochelle

I don’t know about all that.[4]

I do research, too.[5]

Sometimes I ghostwrite.[6]

I’m more concerned about getting the information out than getting credit.[7]

Daniel Borchers

You don’t have an opinion, Mark?

Do you think her behavior is emblematic of someone with integrity?

Michael wasn’t ghostwriting. Totally different. Did you get paid for ghostwriting?

Michael published articles and reports and did research and he was given absolutely no credit. Ann even besmirched his name.

Mark LaRochelle

I have too many beams in my own eye to go around throwing stones. I have forgiven people for much worse. And there are much bigger problems confronting us.[8]

Daniel Borchers

This isn’t about throwing stones, it is about accountability. And it is about the truth.

Ann plagiarized from Michael, lied about Michael, threatened legal action against anyone who spoke the truth about it. Is that integrity?

Moreover, this is but one example – an instance you are personally familiar with. But Ann has exhibited a pattern of such unethical, immoral, and ungodly behavior.

How can conservatives possibly hold liberals accountable for their misconduct if we can’t even address significant failings such as this on our side of the aisle?

And would God – the God who indeed does forgive – would He want the truth to be hidden, the lies to be concealed, the sin to be continued? I think not.

Mark LaRochelle

I don’t think criticism of Coulter is that well hidden.[9] She is probably the single most defamed individual since McCarthy.[10]

Daniel Borchers

It’s only defamation if it is false.

But you still haven’t addressed my questions.

Mark LaRochelle

Virtually all the vilification of Coulter that chokes the media is false.[11]

Daniel Borchers

We can disagree on that. But what of Ann’s plagiarism? Do you condone that? Excuse that? Ignore that?

Mark LaRochelle

Any number of left-wing luminaries have committed genuine, legally actionable plagiarism.[12] Yet they are lionized and promoted by tax-funded agencies like the National Institute for the Humanities, PBS and NPR; they are given awards and rewards.[13] Whenever a conservative such as Rush or Coulter dares speak out, they must be silenced and banished like McCarthy.[14]

Daniel Borchers

So, because others do it, it’s OK for Ann to break the law? It’s OK for Ann to besmirch the reputation of the person she victimized? It’s OK for Ann to threaten truth-seekers? It’s OK for Regnery to side with Ann – lie! – and leave Michael high and dry?

When does doing the right thing cease to be the right thing to do?

Mark LaRochelle

When Chapman wrote for Human Events, he was writing for Regnery. They paid him for his work. It was theirs.[15] They allowed Coulter to use it. She put Chapman in her acknowledgements.[16] I understand Chapman’s position. Been there, done that.

Daniel Borchers

1) Ann did not put Michael in her acknowledgements. She has never publicly acknowledged his contribution. In fact, she denied his contribution, denied even ever having heard his name.

2) Michael’s research was Michael’s.

3) Regnery lied about Michael’s part in her book, saying that every word was Ann Coulter’s. EVERY WORD.

Mark LaRochelle

I have a first edition hard copy. Chapman is in the acknowledgements.[17]

[I was taken aback by his clear, bold, and unequivocal statement. For a very brief moment, I questioned myself. But then I distinctly remembered that High Crimes is the only Coulter book without an Acknowledgment.

LaRochelle lied. Why would he lie about possessing a book he did not have with an Acknowledgement it did not contain? Why would he lie about something so fact-checkable? It wasn’t his lie, it was Coulter’s.

Liars live in the moment. They always believe that their next lie will cover-up their last one. Besides, Coulter wasn’t lying to me (she knows I know the truth). She was lying to her colleague. – DB]

Daniel Borchers

Would you please provide the citation?

Mark LaRochelle

After Chapman made a public dispute, Coulter (or Regnery) removed his name from later editions.[18]

Daniel Borchers

Please provide the citation.

Also, why spitefully remove his name if he was originally acknowledged? His contribution to her book still remains his contribution.

When privately questioned about the omission of Michael’s name, why did Ann say it would be corrected in the softcover, but never correct it?

Mark LaRochelle

I don’t know about that. Acknowledgement is at the author’s discretion. If I accused an author who acknowledged my research of plagiarism, I wouldn’t be surprised to be removed.[19]

As far as “Chapman’s research is his own” – I wish! Human Events retains the rights to every article I ever got paid for.

Daniel Borchers

“Research” not “article” – unpublished research.

Mark LaRochelle

How did Coulter acquire Chapman’s unpublished work?

Daniel Borchers

Terence Jeffrey wanted Ann and Michael to co-author the book. Terence asked Michael to give everything he had to Ann. He did so, expecting credit and/or co-authorship.

Mark LaRochelle

I’ll ask Terry about that.

Daniel Borchers

Please do. Also, would you mind scanning that Acknowledgement for me?

Thanks in advance.

[After a lengthy pause]

Can you get back to me on Terry and the Acknowledgement?

July 21, 2014

[I waited for several days for LaRochelle to do his research on Terry and the Acknowledgement. – DB]

Daniel Borchers

Hi Mark. Are you there?

Hi Mark. Do you have a moment?

Were you able to scan the High Crimes’ Acknowledgement for me?

[Shortly afterwards, LaRochelle blocked my access to his Facebook page. – DB]

July 22, 2014

[The following morning, I sent the following email to LaRochelle. – DB]

Subject: Ann Coulter’s Plagiarism

Dear Mark,

Thank you for your (abruptly terminated) Facebook chat. Have you ever noticed that people who refuse to talk are generally those who have something to hide?

I eagerly anticipated seeing your scan of Ann’s Acknowledgement in High Crimes. My own first editions (both hard cover and soft cover) of High Crimes contain no Acknowledgement whatsoever. I’d like to see what yours looks like.

Ann lied to you, she lied about Michael (and me), and she has turned you into a liar, too.

You have discovered how easy it is to become an enabler, to condone and enable sin, instead of what we are called to do: expose the unfruitful works of darkness (Eph. 5:11-14).

The bottom line: Ann plagiarized from Michael, using his words and his research without giving him credit. That is the very definition of plagiarism. Then she denied knowing him, attacked him, and threatened legal action against the press reporting on it. Cover-up? Of course.

Moreover, Regnery literally said that High Crimes was 100% Ann Coulter. A lie. And now you have joined the ranks of those who will defend Ann no matter how wrong she is.

Would Jesus approve?

If you want to talk, I can be reached at 240-476-9690.

You can use this email address: coulterwatch@yahoo.com.

Sincerely,

Dan Borchers

[Not without its irony, in my first interview with LaRochelle, Mark wrote “My personal experience (with Ann) is mostly in helping with the research for her McCarthy chapters in ‘Treason.’” Would that be the Treason in which LaRochelle was not credited? Yes!

I wonder what Mark thinks of Ann’s tweets: “I do all my own research[20] and “No one does my research for me, but me.[21] – DB]

[See Propaganda: Orwell in the Age of Ann Coulter, available as a free PDF download at http://www.coulterwatch.com/propaganda.pdf, for a more detailed examination of Ann Coulter’s much-neglected plagiarism in her very first book. To date, Coulter has yet to publicly acknowledge the many contributions in words and research provided by her colleague, Michael Chapman. – DB]

Endnotes:

[1]       This is an admission that Coulter “copied passages” from Chapman’s articles.

[2]       This is an utter impossibility as High Crimes and Misdemeanors did not have an Acknowledgements section. Already the lies are materializing.

[3]       Coulter paid Chapman absolutely nothing!

[4]       He doesn’t have an opinion about a colleague’s adherence to moral and ethical practices in journalism?

[5]       So? Don’t all journalists?

[6]       Relevancy?

[7]       That’s nice. Stealing credit is illegal. Besides, Chapman did want the credit – credit to which he was entitled.

[8]       In other words, he is turning a blind eye to his colleague’s wrongdoing – because she is his colleague (and rich and powerful). What she did wasn’t so bad, so let’s forget it. Let’s hide the truth. Besides, I forgive her, so Chapman should, too.

[9]       Certainly, Coulter is a very criticized person – from the Left. Very few conservatives criticize her, especially when she deserves criticism.

[10]     Actually, Coulter is probably the most defaming individual since McCarthy. Most substantive criticisms of Coulter are largely accurate and based in reality. Coulter does lie, does use hate speech, does employ elimination rhetoric, and does deliberately offend other people.

[11]     The reverse is true.

[12]     Consider his immediate parsing and equivocation: “genuine, legally actionable plagiarism.” Coulter’s plagiarism was definitely genuine and legally actionable, but his assertion implies it isn’t.

[13]     The Left gets away with it, so shouldn’t Coulter? Can we please dispense now and forever with the “everybody does it” defense?

[14]     The issue is not silencing or censorship, it is plagiarism – a crime!

[15]     Human Events may have owned the published work, but not the credit. Chapman deserves the recognition.

[16]     Once again, High Crimes did not contain an Acknowledgement. This is pure fiction.

[17]     A flat out lie, as noted above. Coulter must have provided these words to LaRochelle. Who would volunteer such an assertion on their own, one which could so easily be refuted if inaccurate? LaRochelle clearly did not know there was no Acknowledge in High Crimes. Coulter must have dictated his answer, lying to me (and to LaRochelle).

[18]     Yet another detailed lie provided by Coulter. Chapman certainly never made that claim. Coulter is the only possible source for this lie. Moreover, the public dispute arose years later, not 1998. Chapman tried, privately, to address the matter.

[19]     Yet another rationalization. If Coulter had credited him in her Acknowledgement, there would have been no basis for a charge of plagiarism. She could have easily said, “Look, here’s your credit!”

[20]     Ann Coulter tweet, 3/7/12, 11:37 p.m..

[21]     Ann Coulter tweet, 3/7/12, 11:23 p.m..

Ann Coulter’s Plagiarism – High Crimes

[See Propaganda: Orwell in the Age of Ann Coulter for a more detailed examination of Ann Coulter’s much-neglected plagiarism in her very first book. To date, Coulter has yet to publicly acknowledge the many contributions in words and research provided by her colleague, Michael Chapman. – DB]

The publication of High Crimes and Misdemeanors launched Ann Coulter’s literary career and expanded her meager credentials as a journalist.

Plagiarist01

In 1998, on Washington Journal, Coulter boasted of how impressed her law professors were over her own research: “Both my undergraduate at Cornell and University of Michigan professors have been quite impressed with what I’ve turned up on “high crimes and misdemeanors.”[1] What, exactly, did Coulter “turn up” that so impressed her professors? As it turns out, one of her most cited sources was the Rodino Report (on Watergate), which was coauthored by Hillary Rodham Clinton who, seemingly, did the grunt work for Coulter.

While Coulter verbally took credit for research performed by Hillary Clinton, wife of her intended impeachment target in High Crimes, in late 2001, it was discovered that she also took credit for her colleague’s research into and reporting of various Clinton scandals.

In October 2001, the Boston Globe published a scoop revealing allegations of plagiarism by Coulter, who then threatened a lawsuit if the story was published. Regnery stood by its best-selling author (money talks, power corrupts), denying any plagiarism took place. The facts prove otherwise.

The most factual of Coulter’s books, High Crimes perhaps owes that accuracy in part to its undisclosed de facto co-author, Michael Chapman.

Published in June 1998, to both capitalize on and influence the impending impeachment of President Clinton, High Crimes included both the words and the research of Michael Chapman, who at that time was Associate Editor for Human Events. According to a corroborating source at Human Events, Regnery “should have given him credit. They treated him wrong on that. He really wrote and researched most of the material. The book does not acknowledge the huge amount of research done by Michael Chapman.”[2]

As of this writing, Regnery and Eagle Publishing have never officially credited Chapman’s contribution to this book, despite the written evidence and the direct personal knowledge of key players at Eagle Publishing. Indeed, they – and Coulter herself – assert Coulter’s sole authorship of High Crimes.

Not only does Coulter continue to claim she wrote every word, she even denies knowing – and knowing of – Michael Chapman, a co-worker with whom she attended weekly editorial meetings at Human Events. However, Coulter did admit to a Coulter fan and friend of Chapman, at a CPAC conference, that the exclusion of Chapman’s name from her book was “an editorial oversight.” The chronology – and the actions of Coulter et. al. – prove otherwise.

Plagiarism & Ghost Writers

Chris Matthews asked Coulter about her about-to-be-released third book, Treason (2003):[3]

MATTHEWS: “Let me ask you, why’s your book going to be better than Hillary’s?”

COULTER: “Well, for one thing, because I wrote my book.”

MATTHEWS: “Are you charging Hillary with plagiarism or having a ghost writer?”

COULTER: “No, no, well, of course, she has a ghost writer. I mean, I don’t think that’s disputed or particularly dishonorable. But I believe you write your own books.”

Coulter chided Hillary Clinton for not writing her book when, as it turns out, Coulter’s first book, High Crimes and Misdemeanors, was not entirely her own. Coulter borrowed some sections from a co-worker whom she later disavowed even knowing. Portions of High Crimes were unquestionably plagiarized from Michael Chapman and portions may even have been ghostwritten by David Wagner.[4] Let’s examine the chronology.

February & March, 1998 – Other Authors

Circa Feb. 12th – Terence P. Jeffrey (Editor, Human Events) and Michael Chapman (Associate Editor and Clinton reporter for Human Events), were originally tasked with writing an impeachment book.

Circa Feb. 13th – Jeffrey dissolved the agreement because he didn’t believe that Clinton had committed an impeachable offense.

Feb. 19th – Regnery asked Chapman to co-author what would become the Coulter book.

Feb. 20th – Chapman presented Regnery with a proposal containing the same terms and conditions of his previous agreement with Jeffrey.

Circa Feb. 23rd – Mark Ziebarth rejected Chapman’s conditions, which included insistence on co-authorship credit and copyright retention.

Circa March 2nd – Coulter entered Chapman’s office, demanding his files and research. Chapman says, “She was adamant, impatient, and acted as if she deserved those files.” Chapman later gave those files (paper and electronic) to Thomas M. Winter (Editor-in-Chief, Human Events). “Tom told me that he was sure they would have to give me some type of credit or acknowledgement.”

Early March – David Wagner (former writer for Insight magazine) took possession of the office next to Chapman’s to ghost-write the manuscript for Coulter. Chapman says, “Wagner was ghostwriting the Coulter manuscript. He had Human Events articles and the booklets on impeachment and other materials in his office. Everyone in the office knew what was going on. It was no secret.”

June 8, 1998 – Original Research

Coulter appeared on C-Span’s Washington Journal boasting that “both my undergraduate at Cornell and University of Michigan professors have been quite impressed with what I’ve turned up on ‘high crimes and misdemeanors.’”[5] Actually, Coulter drew heavily from Raoul Berger’s book,[6] the Rodino Report,[7] and the Federalist Papers.

Indeed, the preponderance of materials directly related to “high crimes and misdemeanors” is actually contained in those three sources. Hardly “original” research. One could reasonably contend that Hillary Rodham “turned up” more on “high crimes and misdemeanors” in the Rodino Report than Coulter did in High Crimes.

August, 1998 – Book Publication

Regnery published High Crimes and Misdemeanors under Coulter’s sole byline. The cover prominently featured President Clinton’s photo. Subsequent reprints and paperback versions sport a Coulter photo and sole authorship given to Coulter.

December 17, 1998 – Michael Chapman

Michael Chapman sent a letter to the Trustees of the Phillips Foundation. In it he stated:

“From what I have seen so far, verbatim passages from my writing are found on pages 121, 122, 219 and 220 of the High Crimes book. Rewritten passages are reproduced on pages 125, 126, 127 and 220. Other material I wrote is paraphrased on pages 123, 124, 203, 204, 205, 214, and 218.”

“Furthermore, mostly all of chapter 18, ‘Wampumgate,’ is a rewrite or paraphrase of reporting I did for HE.”

October 18, 2001 – Boston Globe

Rumors about Chapman’s work reached the Boston Globe[8] and Coulter’s attack machine immediately went into action. Coulter threatened lawsuits and denied ever knowing – or having heard of – Chapman.

Richard E. Signoreli, Coulter’s lawyer, sent Alex Beam an email[9] to dissuade him from publication.

“I am legal counsel for Ann Coulter. I write in connection with an article that I understand you are preparing about my client and her book, High Crimes and Misdemeanors. You should know that Ms. Coulter’s book was not ghostwritten at all. Ms. Coulter researched and wrote the entire book from beginning to end with no assistance whatsoever from any ghostwriter.”

“This e-mail will put you on notice that the information you are receiving from a Michael Chapman about this subject is completely false. Ms. Coulter does not even know who Mr. Chapman is and Mr. Chapman did not contribute any writing or research for her book.”

“We consider any statement by anyone that Ms. Coulter’s book was ghostwritten not only to be totally and recklessly false, but libelous as well. Ms. Coulter’s reputation will be significantly harmed if such a statement was printed in your newspaper. Please be advised that legal action will be taken against you, the Boston Globe, and Mr. Chapman if your article states that Ms. Coulter’s book was ghostwritten, or was even partially written by someone else.”

Nevertheless, the Boston Globe story was published:

“… But now Coulter is facing less welcome publicity – the suggestion that she is not the sole author of the 1998 bestseller ‘High Crimes and Misdemeanors’ that brought her to national prominence as a telegenic Clinton-basher and poster girl for the right-wing establishment.”

“The charges were first leveled in a memo by Michael Chapman, formerly a colleague of Coulter’s at the conservative weekly Human Events. In December 1998, shortly after Coulter’s book came out, Chapman complained to his bosses that a lot of his original research and reporting – carried out for a special 1997 Human Events supplement called ‘A Case for Impeachment’ – ended up in Coulter’s book. In several instances, he wrote, his work was reproduced verbatim, paraphrased, or slightly rewritten, but never acknowledged. Chapman had originally volunteered to ghostwrite the impeachment book, but Regnery Publishing, which is owned by the same company as Human Events, didn’t sign a contract with him. Instead, David Wagner, then a writer at Insight magazine, was hired to write a draft of the impeachment book project. …”

“Regnery’s executive editor Harry Crocker said Wagner ‘drew some stuff together. Ann read those chapters and she read Chapman’s work as well. They offered some basis for source material, but it was my impression that she threw those drafts away as irrelevant. … If you took a page of [Chapman’s impeachment report] and a page of her book, she thinks you wouldn’t find any overlap. The book is 100 percent Ann Coulter.’”

Richard E. Signoreli sent Beam a second email,[10] this one to encourage a retraction. In the second, Signorelli wrote:

“Your October 18, 2001 column suggesting my client Ann Coulter engaged in a misuse of the May 23, 1997 Human Events Impeachment Report is recklessly and intentionally false. You have falsely identified a Michael Chapman as the author of the Report. In fact, Ann Coulter was herself a co-author of the May 23, 1997 Human Events Impeachment Report.”

Coulter’s attorney wrote:

“As is obvious on the face of the report, Chapman was the sole author only of the introduction to that report (which is not the source of the statements you cite as evidence of misuse.) The rest was a Human Events staff report that lifted passages directly from, among other things, Ms. Coulter’s earlier columns in Human Events. It is outrageous – intentionally malicious – that you neglect to mention the indisputably crucial fact that Ms. Coulter herself was part author of the very report you accuse her of misusing. Incidentally, Ms. Coulter still does not recall knowing Mr. Chapman. …”

“As I repeatedly informed you, Ms. Coulter researched and wrote all of High Crimes and Misdemeanors from beginning to end with no assistance whatsoever. Her editor and publisher can confirm this. …”

Errors in these two emails from Coulter’s lawyers include:

  • If Coulter was a co-author of the Special Report, this contradicts her claim of not knowing Chapman.
    Material from Chapman’s article (“Casino Lobbyist: ‘I talk to Al Gore a Lot,’ Wanted Veep to Intervene with Babbitt,” by Michael Chapman, Human Events, 2/13/98) was not in the Special Report, but was in Coulter’s book.
  • The Special Report first appeared as a special supplement in the 5/23/97 issue of Human Events. Michael Chapman was the sole byline, with no reference to “Human Events editors.”
  • The booklet version of the special report (“A Case for Impeachment?”) also has a sole byline for Chapman. Of its approximately 50 pages, Coulter provided short sections subtitled “The Law” on pages 10, 15, 23, 27, 31, 34, 38 and 43 (a total of 24 paragraphs out of 50 pages). The remainder of the material was not Coulter’s. The plagiarized portions were not part of her paragraphs.

Coulter’s editor and publisher do not confirm that Coulter had “no assistance whatsoever.” Coulter had the benefit of the writing, research and analysis of both Michael Chapman and David Wagner. (The Globe published the feature but rewarded Coulter with a coveted seat at their table at the next White House Correspondents’ Dinner.)

Alfred Regnery, President of Regnery Publishing, explained the genesis of Coulter’s first book. “We originally came up with it in our office. Part of it was published in Human Events originally. Ann Coulter then got involved in it. She wrote the book. It didn’t take more than six months probably from the time she got involved till we had book. The book’s first printing went out in large quantities. Subsequent printings. New York Times best seller. Lots of promotion. It was a big book.”[11] He confirmed that the concept arose before Coulter became involved.

January, 2002 – Book Publication

Regnery published High Crimes in paperback, again without acknowledging Michael Chapman’s contribution.

Current Status

Coulter lied and threatened lawsuits to conceal the personally humiliating fact that her career-making first (and perhaps best) best-selling book plagiarized the work of a colleague. Neither Coulter nor Regnery will publicly acknowledge Chapman’s contribution to High Crimes, nor have they even offered Chapman a private apology for their “editorial oversight” in failing to give credit where credit is due.

[The media resurrected Coulter’s plagiarism in High Crimes when it was discovered that she also plagiarized in Godless (2006). This column does not delve into that already well-documented instance of plagiarism. The point has already been made: Coulter is a confirmed plagiarist!.– DB]

See Propaganda: Orwell in the Age of Ann Coulter for additional material. It is available as a free PDF download at http://www.coulterwatch.com/propaganda.pdf.

Endnotes:

[1]       Ann Coulter, Washington Journal, C-Span, 6/8/98.

[2]       Author interview.

[3]       Hardball, CNBC, 5/1/03.

[4]       Author interview.

[5]       Ann Coulter, Washington Journal, C-Span, 6/8/98.

[6]       Raoul Berger, Impeachment: The Constitutional Problems, 1973.

[7]       Staff report, House Committee on the Judiciary, 93rd Congress, “Constitutional Grounds for Presidential Impeachment,” 2/22/74.

[8]       Alex Beam, Boston Globe, 10/18/01.

[9]       Email provided to me by Richard E. Signoreli.

[10]     Ibid.

[11]     Author interview.

An (Almost) Perfect Piece of Propaganda from Ann Coulter

Anatomy of a False Narrative

(A Primer in Propaganda)

[This feature is presented in my new book, Propaganda: George Orwell in the Age of Ann Coulter, available as a free download at www.coulterwatch.com/propaganda.pdf. A complete 14-page version is available at www.coulterwatch.com/files/anatomy.pdfDB]

Anatomy

Coulter’s second column attacking Christian missionaries is a study in propaganda. In it, Coulter employs a variety of Orwellian techniques, speaks authoritatively, and uses a wide range of humor to good effect. Those unfamiliar with Scripture and the teachings of Jesus could very easily be deceived. Others could be repelled from the gospel of Christ because of her words.

Here, we expose the deception and provide an anatomy of her false narrative. Consider this a primer in propaganda. Coulter used humor throughout her column to mock her critics and delegitimize their criticisms.

Opening Gambits

Coulter began her narrative with a paraphrase of Scripture, cleverly turning a well-known statement from Jesus into a defense of herself. Her essay title: “Let He Who is Without Ebola Cast the First Stone” hearkens back to one of the most poignant accounts in the Gospels.

The Pharisees wanted to stone to death a woman caught in adultery and Jesus defended her, saying, “Let him that is without sin among you first cast the stone at her (John 8:7).” Immediately – in her essay title alone – Coulter cast her critics as Pharisees and herself as the one defended by Jesus. Just as Jesus rebuked the Pharisees, Coulter rebukes her critics.

(Oh, by the way, it was Coulter who actually threw stones.)[1]

Technique # 1: Frame the Narrative

But back to Coulter’s essay and its lead paragraph: “There was some hubbub about my column last week, where I complained about Christians, like Dr. Kent Brantly, who abandon America to do much-praised work in Third World countries.”

Using a less poetic version of the Bard’s famous line from Macbeth,[2] “full of sound and fury signifying nothing,” Coulter diminished the extent of the controversy concerning her previous column by using a colloquialism to describe it: “hubbub.” Coulter then took the offensive, accusing the missionary of deserting his country for self-glory. Already Coulter contrasted two themes: an inconsequential hubbub over her innocent words and the sinister actions of false Christians.

Coulter, in effect, turned a Christian virtue into treason – and she conflated the gospel with patriotism (and conservatism).[3]

Technique # 2: Ignore Inconvenient Truths (e.g., “memory hole”)

Next, Coulter again diminished her own wrong behavior, dismissing the very notion there was anything at all to criticize, and she contrasted that with the alleged wrongdoing of her critics.

“I planned to respond to my critics this week, but, unfortunately, there’s nothing to respond to. They call me names, say I’m cruel, malicious, not a Christian, compare me to Howard Stern and cite the titles of my books as if they are self-refuting. (Zippy, aren’t they?)”

Coulter dismissed those names she was called – “cruel,” “malicious,” “not a Christian,” etc. – as if they were not accurate. Many would contend they are correct!

As you can see, Coulter also defended her books and praised their titles: “zippy” – a word she has employed many times to that end. For instance, during her Demonic book tour, when she asked, “Zippy titles, aren’t they?”[4] But don’t those very titles – Slander, Treason, Godless, Guilty, Demonic – suggest some measure of name-calling by Coulter – the very thing she is condemning?

Next, Coulter further suggested the voluminous criticism she has received from Christians and conservatives over her anti-missionary column is actually comparable to what she receives from liberals attacking her books upon their release:

“In other words, it feels like a book tour.”

In just eight short words, humorously conveyed, Coulter completely dismissed the substantive charges of her critics. She also reminded her readers that she is a perennial victim of the Left, during (and between) book tours. Further, Coulter subtly suggested that all of her Christian critics are liberals (and, therefore, in her eyes at least, not really Christians at all).

Note that Coulter used humor throughout to defuse the seriousness of the charges against her, to show herself in a positive light, and to attack her opponents.

SNIP

Go and Sin No More

Coulter began her column alluding to the biblical account of the woman caught in adultery. Overlooked in her column, in her career, and in her life, is Jesus’ exhortation to that woman he saved from stoning: “Go and sin no more.”

Coulter boasts of being forgiven by God but displays no fruit of repentance. The fruit of the Spirit – as attested to by many this past summer alone – is seemingly not evident in Coulter’s life and work.

Jesus exhortation – “Go and sin no more” – requires repentance. Without repentance, there is no forgiveness. Certainly, this (almost) perfect piece of propaganda by Ann Coulter displays not a smidgeon of repentance.

Returning to Wehner’s wise words, he wrote:

“Most people, having written something so uncharitable about someone who has contracted a usually lethal disease in the service of others – having written a column whose words were meant to wound and ridicule – would be embarrassed by it. Ms. Coulter seems intent on wanting to highlight it. I’m happy to assist her in that effort. Let her columns on Dr. Brantly become an enduring testimony to her work, a window into her heart.”

“Mother Teresa went to Calcutta to serve a God whose highest calling includes serving the weak and suffering wherever they are found. That is something that Ann Coulter not only doesn’t understand; it’s something she finds offensive. Which tells you much of what you need to know about her.”

[For the remainder of this analysis, see my new book, Propaganda: George Orwell in the Age of Ann Coulter, available as a free download at www.coulterwatch.com/propaganda.pdf. A complete 14-page version is available at www.coulterwatch.com/files/anatomy.pdfDB]

Endnotes:

[1]       Coulter could not have been oblivious to the fact that the missionary she condemned had contracted Ebola. That was the impetus for her first column and the whole point of her essay title – highlighting his illness. Continuing to mock him, was she also suggesting that – as the one with Ebola – only he was in a position to cast the first stone? As a Christian, would he do so? But, in keeping with her own argument, if Coulter did not have Ebola, what right did Coulter have to criticize the missionary to begin with?

[2]       Coulter should bear in mind Shakespeare turn of phrase in Hamlet: “The lady doth protest too much.” Coulter’s rebuttal was an unusually long 1,301 words.

[3]       Indeed, throughout this century, Coulter has equated Christianity with Conservatism, claiming there are no liberal Christians. See The Gospel According to Ann Coulter, 2011, at www.coulterwatch.com/gospel.pdf.

[4]       Ann Coulter, In Depth, C-Span, 8/7/11.

Propaganda: Orwell in the Age of Ann Coulter

For almost two decades, Ann Coulter has proven herself untrustworthy.[1] From betraying her own client[2] and scamming voters,[3] to using lies and employing elimination rhetoric,[4] Coulter has shown herself to be unscrupulous – all in the pursuit of self-promotion and self-glory.[5]

A new book – Propaganda: Orwell in the Age of Ann Coulter – delves into the various ways in which Coulter promotes herself and her worldview, and it examines why so many people can come to believe her distortions and lies, even when confronted with a wealth of irrefutable evidence.

FrontCover

That Coulter retains any credibility at all – despite her pathological prevarication, her eager employment of elimination rhetoric, and her enmity to all who do not fit into her scheme of life – is perhaps the mystery of the ages. Propaganda endeavors to explain the seemingly inexplicable.

In a startling manner, Coulter audaciously adopted Orwell’s iconic 1984[6] as a blueprint for her own career. What totalitarian governments and dictators do on a national and international level, Coulter does on a somewhat smaller scale. Ever ideological, always self-promoting, Coulter uses the tactics and techniques, the verbiage and the principles, of 1984 to pursue her own agenda. Where that agenda collides with conservative principles or Christian values, those interests become subservient to her own.

If George Orwell is the Father of Big Brother, then he is the cherished uncle of Ann Coulter. Coulter certainly seems more at home with 1984 then she does with either the Bible or the Constitution.

Propaganda: Orwell in the Age of Ann Coulter is structured in a simple fashion.

Chapter One compares and contrasts Coulter with Nazi propagandist Leni Riefenstahl.

Chapter Two provides a humorous review of a fictitious Ann Coulter book, Delusional, in which all of the quotations contained therein are from Coulter, demonstrating the schizophrenia of Coulter’s own self-identity.

Chapter Three examines Coulter’s first distinctly Orwellian book, Slander, and its incorporation of many Orwellian propaganda techniques. It further looks at Coulter’s own addiction to addictive thinking and its implication in her work.

With Chapter Four, we see the pervasiveness of Orwellian thinking as it is exhibited in Coulter’s third book, Treason, which is steeped in the thought processes of 1984. This chapter explores the many and varied Orwellian techniques and constructs employed by Coulter in Treason.

Chapter Five looks at Coulter’s first compilation of essays, How to Talk to a Liberal (if you must), which is an instruction book – or, How To manual – for conservatives.

A series of case studies then fleshes out the reality of Coulter’s utilization of propaganda and its political and cultural impact.

An Epilog renders hope possible in the life and work of Coulter.

An Appendix critiques an (almost) perfect piece of propaganda by Coulter.

Propaganda: Orwell in the Age of Ann Coulter is available as a free PDF download at www.coulterwatch.com/propaganda.pdf.

Endnotes:

[1]       See Never Trust Ann Coulter – at ANY Age, 2013, available as a free PDF download at www.coulterwatch.com/never.pdf.

[2]       See “Case Study #1: Oh, Paula (Jones)! Ann Coulter’s Betrayal,” Vanity: Ann Coulter’s Quest for Glory, 2012, available as a free PDF download at www.coulterwatch.com/vanity.pdf.

[3]       See “Case Study #3: Coulter for Congress: Only Scoundrels Need Apply,” Vanity: Ann Coulter’s Quest for Glory, 2012, available as a free PDF download at www.coulterwatch.com/vanity.pdf.

[4]       See “Appendix 1: Sampling of Coulter’s Elimination Rhetoric,” The Gospel According to Ann Coulter, 2012, available as a free PDF download at www.coulterwatch.com/gospel.pdf.

[5]       See Vanity: Ann Coulter’s Quest for Glory, 2012, available as a free PDF download at www.coulterwatch.com/vanity.pdf.

[6]       The full text of Orwell’s 1984 is available at http://www.george-orwell.org/1984/0.html.

Coulter Right on Rape, Wrong on Treason

With a stunning display of logic, Ann Coulter recently observed, “If we’re in the middle of a college-rape epidemic, why do all the cases liberals promote keep turning out to be hoaxes? Maybe I’m overthinking this, but wouldn’t a real rape be more persuasive?”[1]

She made that very same point on Hannity: “If we’re drowning in this epidemic of rape on college campuses, why are all the cases they keep giving us hoaxes? Could they give us a real one? And in fact, what it illustrates is an epidemic of false claims of rape.”[2]

RapeTreason

A Townhall promotion praised Coulter, exulting, “Ann Coulter slams the left for minimizing actual rape.” Funny, I don’t recall anyone on Townhall slamming Coulter for minimizing actual treason.

Minimizing Actual Treason

Ever since 9/11, Coulter has constantly and continually condemned liberals, calling them traitors. Her reward: accolades and best-sellers.

If “rape” has a specific meaning, so does “treason.” What exactly is treason? The Constitution defines treason thus:

“Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.”

When confronted with the actual Constitutional definition of treason, Coulter blustered, “Right. I’ve heard that definition like a billion times since the book [Treason] came out.”

Then Coulter completely ignored that definition, adding, “I’m answering now to the question. … look, there are millions of suspects here. I am indicting an entire party. I am indicting the entire Democratic Party.”[3]

Coulter’s Criteria for Treason

Nonetheless, Coulter has cried “Treason!” for years, using criteria at once elastic and evanescent. Treason, per Coulter, consists of rejecting any portion of the Republican Party’s agenda. Moreover, mere failure to applaud appropriately is treasonous in her eyes.

Treasonable offenses, per Coulter, include (this is a partial list to save space):

  • Opposition to tax cuts
  • Opposition to ANWR oil drilling
  • Opposition to the new “Star Wars” defense system
  • Opposition to racial profiling
  • Opposition to invasion of Iraq
  • Being a Democrat
  • Being a moderate Republican
  • Being a liberal

For those of you who think I am kidding, here are a few gems from Ann Coulter herself:

  • “I think they are worse than Democrats. I mean there really is nothing so despicable as a weak-kneed Republican. They’re always trotted out when these Democrats are coming up with the most heinous, treasonous Whenever you hear, you know – ‘Even Chris Shays, even Lawrence Walsh’ – you know treason is afoot.”[4]
  • “Liberals are up to their old tricks again. Twenty years of treason hasn’t slowed them down.”[5]
  • “I think everyone should be patriotic Americans right now, which Democrats are not being. … Democrats [make] these obstructionist objections to reasonable domestic security measures. They refuse to pass a tax cut in order to pull us out of this recession. And they won’t let us drill in Alaska to preserve some mud flat. I would like the Democrats to be Americans.”[6]
  • “… in my next book, [I’m] going through 50 years of treason by Democrats.”[7]
  • “When contemplating college liberals, you really regret once again that John Walker is not getting the death penalty. We need to execute people like John Walker in order to physically intimidate liberals, by making them realize that they can be killed too. Otherwise they will turn into outright traitors.”[8]
  • “Democrats adore threats to the United States. Bush got a raucous standing ovation at his State of the Union address when he announced that ‘this year, for the first time, we are beginning to field a defense to protect this nation against ballistic missiles.’ The excitement was noticeably muted on the Democrats’ side of the aisle. The vast majority of Democrats remained firmly in their seats, sullen at the thought that America would be protected from incoming ballistic missiles. To paraphrase George Bush: If this is not treason, then treason has no meaning.”[9]

But treason does have meaning – only not the meaning Coulter gives it.

Coulter has seemingly determined, through her own unique “strict constructionist” interpretation of the Constitution, that anyone who disagrees with her about anything is a traitor. Since most Americans at some point disagree with Ann Coulter on most issues then most Americans must be traitors.

If the emperor had no clothes then Treason (2003) has no traitors – at least no contemporary ones. In fact, for her book, Coulter had to go back to the McCarthy era to find any treason (thus necessitating making McCarthyism the “linchpin” of her book).

Coulter conveniently skipped Republican traitor Robert Hanson – “the Spy of the Century” – because he didn’t fit her thesis of liberal treachery. Likewise, Jonathan Pollard and Aldrich Ames are absent from her book because they fail to support her paradigm.

Unable to unearth any actual contemporary traitors, Coulter redefined “treason” with rhetorical sleight-of-mouth to magically lead her audience to her preconceived conclusions.

Evidence be damned. If liberals aren’t really traitors they should still be regarded as such. Why? Because they are liberals. (Horror of horrors!)

David Horowitz Criticizes Coulter’s Analysis

David Horowitz gallantly (and laboriously) defended Treason while pointing out a number of flagrant flaws. A repentant Marxist, Horowitz recognized one glaring aspect of Coulter’s Orwellian constructs. Horowitz wrote:

“Equally disturbing was Coulter’s use of the phrase, ‘functionally treasonable’ – as in ‘[the Democratic Party] has become functionally treasonable.’ This is a problematic phrase on several counts. In the first place, ‘treasonable’ is not a word but seems to suggest ‘capable of treason,’ which is different from being actually treasonous. The distinction is important.”[10]

“But ‘functionally treasonable’ is also disturbingly reminiscent of the old Stalinist term ‘objectively fascist.’ This was how people who swore their loyalty to the cause were condemned (often to death) if they deviated from the party line. Stalinists defined all dissent as ‘objectively’ treacherous. This is not a path that conservatives should follow. When intent and individuality are separated from actions in a political context, we are entering a totalitarian realm.”

We see here the very same totalitarian impulses which are reflected in Coulter’s musing over what she would do as “czar of the universe” or desire to be the “ayatollah of the conservative movement.”[11]

William F. Buckley, Jr., Criticizes Coulter’s Analysis

Finally – after months and months of being unable to name a single contemporary traitor, Coulter did: the publisher of the New York Times.

Conservative giant William F. Buckley, Jr., responded, “But even as Ms. Coulter clearly intends to shock, why shouldn’t her reader register that shock? By wondering whether she is out of her mind, or has simply lost her grip on language.”[12]

Buckley explained:

“What except that prompts her to come up with (or the Post to publicize) her syllogism? The man who heads the paper that employs an editorial writer who dangles the proposition that a thought given to moral equivalency is appropriate and humbling on September 11, 2003 is a ‘traitor’? That end-of-the-road word, bear always in mind, is hers. Coulter is a law school graduate and isn’t using the ‘T’-word loosely. The opening sentences of her article reject any such explanation. She means to charge that Sulzberger is engaged in traitorous activity. That, after all, is what traitors engage in.”

Buckley continued:

“The thought-process used here is everywhere in evidence in her best-selling book, Treason: Liberal Treachery from the Cold War to the War on Terrorism. The book’s central contention is that liberals critically situated on the American scene aren’t fatuous asses – that’s baby talk. They are enemies of the United States and of American freedom.”

But that is precisely what Coulter wants to convey: “there are millions of suspects here. I am indicting an entire party. I am indicting the entire Democratic Party.”[13]

When will the conservative movement and conservative media take Coulter to task for minimizing actual treason? Do conservatives no longer care what words mean? Have they, in Buckley’s parlance, “simply lost their grip on language?”

The renowned historian, Paul Johnson, observed:

“A man who deliberately inflicts violence on the language will almost certainly inflict violence on human beings, if he acquires the power. Those who treasure the meaning of words will treasure the truth, and those who bend words to their purposes are very likely in pursuit of anti-social ones. The correct and honorable use of words is the first and natural credential of civilized status.”[14]
Endnotes:

[1]       Ann Coulter, “The College Rape Club, 12/10/14.

[2]       Ann Coulter, Hannity, FNC, 12/9/14.

[3]       Ann Coulter, Buchanan and Press, MSNBC, 7/25/03.

[4]       Ann Coulter, YAF Conference, 7/20/00.

[5]       Ann Coulter, “Mothers Against Box Cutters speak out,” 10/17/01.

[6]       Ann Coulter, Hannity & Colmes, FNC, 12/10/01.

[7]       Ann Coulter, America Now, 1/3/02.

[8]       Ann Coulter, CPAC, 2/2/02.

[9]       Ann Coulter, “War-torn Dems,” 1/29/03.

[10]     David Horowitz, “The Trouble with Treason,’” Front Page Magazine, 7/8/03.

[11]     See “Delusional – New Ann Coulter Book” at http://wp.me/p4jHFp-3z.

[12]     William F. Buckley, Jr., “Tailgunner Ann,” Claremont, 12/1/03.

[13]     Ann Coulter, Buchanan and Press, MSNBC, 7/25/03.

[14]     Ann Coulter, Treason: Liberal Treachery From the Cold War to the War on Terror, Crown, 2003, pg. 292. Quoting from Paul Johnson, Enemies of Society, Atheneum, 1977, pg. 259.

Ann Coulter Trivializes Rape

Ann Coulter’s lead paragraph in her latest polemic would be hilarious if it weren’t so Coulteresque.

“Sorry this column is late. I got raped again on the way home. Twice. I should clarify – by ‘raped,’ I mean that two seductive Barry White songs came on the radio, which, according to the University of Virginia, constitutes rape.”[1]

RapeTrivial

If anyone else had written that, one could say it beautifully encapsulates the folly of redefining terms to the point where they cease to have meaning. Like Rush Limbaugh, Coulter is using absurdity to illustrate the absurd. But Coulter has no credibility on this issue to make that point.

In her column, Coulter does makes a superb point, “If we’re in the middle of a college-rape epidemic, why do all the cases liberals promote keep turning out to be hoaxes? Maybe I’m overthinking this, but wouldn’t a real rape be more persuasive?”[2]

However, Coulter’s brilliant analysis of the alleged “rape crisis” on college campuses makes one’s mind boggle over Coulter’s own disingenuous on rape.

The previous night on Hannity, Coulter lamented the trivialization of rape by all of these rape hoaxes. But Coulter herself has – for years – trivialized rape.

No matter what Ann Coulter says, it is hard to believe that she cares about rape victims or the offspring of rape. She does not.

Coulter blithely speaks of raping the planet as our God-given duty, and, just this year, made numerous accusations of rape. Indeed, Coulter claimed that she was being raped.

Immigration = Rape

At a conference in March, Coulter likened immigration to rape. In her own words:

“No, [immigration] isn’t a natural process. It’s like you’re being raped and the guy is telling you, ‘Sorry, my penis is in you. Nothing you can do about it.’ … No, you’re raping me! Demographics are changing by force. There is nothing natural about it.”[3]

Those bolded words – “you’re raping me” – were shouted, with gasps from the audience!

Rape01

For nearly two decades, Coulter has railed against rape hoaxes, such as Tawana Brawley, which were perpetrated to make political points. But Coulter’s real attitude toward rape is cavalier. Babies conceived in rape have no value in her eyes. Coulter speaks favorably of raping the planet. And, now, she claims immigrants are raping her!

Rape02

“Rape Us Again”

Only a month later, Coulter again diluted the meaning and diminished the significance of rape by making false accusations against the mayor of New York City. Coulter marred an otherwise exemplary column on the rapists of the Central Park jogger by invoking the Rape Card again. Coulter concluded that column with these words:

“But now de Blasio wants to hold down our legs while the ‘Central Park Five’ rape us, again.”[4]

Rape03

When did the “Central Park Five” rape Ann, how is de Blasio raping her again, and how are immigrants now raping Coulter? (Let’s be clear: only one person was raped and it was not Coulter!)

Coulter, the consummate wordsmith, should know better! Lacking sense and sensibilities, Coulter – again! – diminishes and trivializes the reality of actual rape.[5]

Astonishingly, her column (and a large section in in her book) describes the 1989 rape in question, yet Coulter is inured to the reality of what she describes.

Rape Exception for Abortion

Moreover, Coulter thinks life in the womb is a “philosophical” argument and wants pro-lifers to be pragmatic by permitting human beings who are conceived in rape to be aborted.

She insists, “Can you learn to say, ‘no exceptions’ or rather, ‘no abortions with exceptions for rape, incest and the life of the mother?’ Learn that. Memorize that. Stop waxing philosophical when you’re running to make laws.”[6]

Rape04

Absolving Romney for his disastrous defeat in 2012, Coulter blamed pro-lifers:

“The last two weeks of the campaign were consumed with discussions of women’s ‘reproductive rights,’ not because of anything Romney did, but because these two idiots [Akin and Mourdock] decided to come out against abortion in the case of rape and incest.”

Coulter’s disregard for human life is clear in her pretzel-twisted logic:

“No law is ever going to require a woman to bear the child of her rapist. Yes, it’s every bit as much a life as an unborn child that is not the product of rape. But sentient human beings are capable of drawing gradations along a line.”

A child of rape is “every bit as much a life as an unborn child that is not the product of rape,” yet that child’s life is forfeit for political reasons.[7]

Ethics have never been Coulter’s forte.

Update: Not long after this column was posted, Coulter suggested that physical violence usually accompanies rape, like “being hit on the head with a brick. People know what a rape is, and to have girls trying to get attention from Lena Dunham to this poor psychotic at UVA … ( Lars Larson Show, 12/11/14).

Coulter has a surprisingly different perspective when it comes to her own safety:

“Men’s hands are lethal weapons. Every male I walk past, every male I walk past, I look at him knowing with his bare hands he could kill me, and I can do nothing. But I have no option. I can’t kill somebody with my bare hands (MSNBC, 11/10/96).”

Endnotes:

[1]       Ann Coulter, “The College Rape Club, 12/10/14.

[2]       Ann Coulter, “The College Rape Club, 12/10/14.

[3]       Ann Coulter, Eagle Forum panel, 3/8/14.

[4]       Ann Coulter, “What You Won’t Read in the Papers About the ‘Central Park Five,’” 4/23/14.

[5]       As brilliant as Coulter can be, she lacks sound judgment, which is one of many reasons why we should Never Trust Ann Coulter – at ANY Age, at www.coulterwatch.com/never.pdf.

[6]       Ann Coulter, “Don’t Blame Romney,” 11/7/12.

[7]       See Rebecca Kiessling, “Rebecca Kiessling’s Reply to Ann Coulter – Save the 1,” 11/9/12, http://rebeccakiessling.wordpress.com/2012/11/09/rebecca-kiesslings-reply-to-ann-coulter-save-the-1/.

Coulter Dictates

Since becoming a conservative celebrity in 1998, Ann Coulter has felt compelled to dictate to Americans whom they should vote for. In the last presidential cycle, Coulter foisted Romney on reluctant Republicans, and we all know how that turned out. (Although Coulter, alone, still thinks Romney was an “ideal” candidate who ran a “magnificent” campaign.)

Ever since Romney’s debacle in 2012, Coulter has insisted that only governors or senators run for president. (But wasn’t Romney a former governor?)

Now Coulter is becoming even more strident in her zeal to coronate the next Republican nominee.

Dictates

Nevertheless, with the 2016 election almost two years away, Coulter is insistent that her choices – and only her choices – be considered as Republican nominees for President.

Coulter’s Criteria for President

On Fox & Friends, Coulter explained, “On the Republican side, for the first time ever, I would really like if we didn’t have a bunch of crazy candidates.”[1]

Those “crazy candidates” would, of course, be those who were not governors or senators.

Coulter again reiterated her general criteria for a presidential nominee: “If you haven’t been a governor or a senator – preferably a governor – please do not run for President as a Republican.”

She then whittled away specific candidates who do not conform to her criteria: “We do not want Carly Fiorina. I love her, but no, she can’t run.”

Who is “we,” Ann? Who says “we” don’t want Carly? And why “can’t” she run?

Coulter quickly continued, “Same thing with Ben Carson. Fantastic surgeon. I never wanted Ronald Reagan to be my surgeon.”

Who asked Reagan to perform surgery? How about another non sequitur – Did Ann ask Reagan to act?

Next, Coulter dispensed with an entire category of politicians: “You can’t have congressmen.”

What does Coulter mean by “You can’t have …?” Coulter is telling us (conservatives, Republicans, libertarians, Americans) whom we can or cannot nominate! What we can or cannot do!

Advocacy for a particular candidate or policy position is one thing, but dictating whom we can vote for is quite another.

Coulter’s Very Short List

In the end, Coulter offered conservatives her four choices for Republican presidential candidates: “No wasting time. It’s down to Romney, Ted Cruz, Chris Christie, or Scott Walker. That’s it, Republicans!”

Romney and Christie are both on her very short list. 50% RINOs! Romney – her first choice! Again!

And why is Christie back in favor if amnesty is the single most important issue facing Americans today? Remember, Coulter claimed, “I’m now a single-issue voter (on immigration), so Christie is off my list.”[2] Moreover, Coulter insisted, “The only thing I can’t forgive [Chris Christie] for is amnesty.”[3]

It makes no sense!

I guess Coulter has forgiven Christie. Or, far more likely, she does not care that Christie is a RINO. All that matters to Coulter is that Christie is “electable.”

Coulter’s entire convoluted set of criteria for presidential candidates is not really about selecting the best candidate, but the most electable one. For Coulter, it’s about position, not policies.

Whereas most conservatives want a robust and vigorous debate, Coulter wants to stifle and control debate – and be the one in control.

When she tells us she ponders being “czar of the universe,” it should give us pause. When she admits that she wants and needs to be the “ayatollah of the conservative movement,” we have been forewarned. We have already seen her habitual abuse of power.

Principles have never been very important to Ann Coulter. Not in her personal life. Not in her professional life. Not in her spiritual life. And clearly not in politics.

Endnotes:

[1]       Ann Coulter, Fox & Friends, FNC, 12/6/14.

[2]       Ann Coulter, CPAC, 3/16/13.

[3]       Ann Coulter, Hannity, FNC, 11/6/13.