By Ann Coulter’s own standards, Coulter’s most recent column is completely fraudulent.
In her 2002 bestseller, Slander, Coulter argued, “A false argument should be refuted, not named. That’s the basic idea behind freedom of speech. Arguments by name-calling, rather than truth and light, can generally be presumed fraudulent.”
Ergo, Coulter’s most recent column is fraudulent.
In Slander, Coulter decried Democrats using “name-calling as political strategy.”
Coulter avers, “For the left, name-calling need bear no relationship to the facts: It is mere liturgy.” That strategy, per Coulter, involves “the ritual imprecation [which] must be uttered” – calling opponents “stupid.”
Coulter continued, “The ‘you’re stupid’ riposte is part of the larger liberal tactic of refusing to engage ideas.” Indeed, Coulter claimed:
“More often, liberals withdraw figuratively by responding with ludicrous and irrelevant personal attacks. Especially popular are non sequiturs that are also savagely cruel. A vicious personal smear, they believe, constitutes a clever counterargument. Your refusal to submit to name-calling means you were overwhelmed by the force of their argument that you are a penis-head.”
Coulter’s Fraudulent Column
Coulter’s essay title this week, “Moonies for Cruz,” apparently alludes to moonbats and not the religious group. Either way, her column went downhill from there.
Coulter’s critique of election antics thus far included ad hominem targeting Cruz and his supporters, provided here sequentially: “cheaters … Cruz-bots … cat’s paw by the Never Trump crowd … Cruz cultists … guttersnipe, lying political operators … lies … insane lie … Cruz and his cult-like followers lie … They lie … They lie … They lie … They lie … Cruz-bots … Cruz cult … as big a liar as the liberals … They lie … slavishly devoted Cruz-bots … how dishonest they are … swine.”
Most of Coulter’s column is pure propaganda, disguised as analysis. (Future column forthcoming to address this.) Coulter defends the indefensible and attacks a vast array of innocent people. Culprit becomes victim and victim culprit. Moreover, what Coulter calls “lies” are actually the truth she seeks to deny.
Coulter’s concluding sentence: “I was under the misimpression that honesty was still a conservative value.”
Honesty remains a conservatives value, one which Coulter clearly does not value.
Trump Critics Not Name-Calling
This January, Coulter claimed, “The attacks on Trump from the ‘conservative’ media calling him a socialist, a Democrat, a flip-flopper, a fake conservative are just name-calling.”
Coulter is wrong. They are naming (as in identifying), not name-calling (as in insulting and demeaning).
In reality, every one of those claims cited by Coulter accurately identify specific, definable characteristics, which are backed up by substantive evidence, looking at Trump’s long history of support for liberals and liberal positions, or his contradictory statements on various issues. (Recently, Trump gave five different and differing statements regarding his views on abortion.)
Strikingly, the ad hominem originates with (as opposed to being directed toward) the Trump campaign.
The New York Times provides a list of “210 People, Places and Things Donald Trump Has Insulted on Twitter: A Complete List.” On the other hand, no such list exists for Ted Cruz, whose most-remarked-upon “insult” was to deride Trump’s “New York values,” an objective observation any sentient being grasped at the time.
Coulter hates to lose as much as she hates being wrong, and she’s done a lot of both lately.
Joe Newby, at the Conservative Firing Line, called her column “a hate-filled screed one might expect to see at Salon.” Newby made a strikingly accurate observation (emphasis added):
“But more to the point, she has ripped the mask off and revealed that underneath, she truly hates conservatives, especially those who disagree with her – and she’s not beneath throwing them all under the bus.”
Why the animus against conservatives, Christians, and pro-lifers? Because for two decades Coulter has moved away from their principles, ideals, and goals. She has abandoned what she once believed and held true. And we know it.
Over the past two election cycles, Coulter has spent far more time attacking conservatives, Christians, and pro-lifers, than she has either attacking liberalism or defending conservatism.
Perhaps her animus partly stems from not getting her way. Coulter foisted Romney on us in 2012 and failed to get him elected. Now, she is foisting Trump on us, and his failure is imminent.
Coulter is terrified of Trump’s imminent failure because she has inextricably linked her own credibility and career to Trump’s success and his failure will be her failure.
 Ann Coulter, “Moonies for Cruz,” 4/6/16.
 Ann Coulter, “Liberal and Conservative Media Unite Against Trump,” 1/20/16.
 See “An Open Letter to Ann Coulter” at http://wp.me/p4jHFp-cK.
 See “Ann Coulter’s Growing Irrelevancy” at http://wp.me/p4jHFp-8Y.
 See “Coulter Hates All GOP Candidates But Trump” at http://wp.me/p4jHFp-bj.
 See “Coulter Attacks Christians for Being Godly” at http://wp.me/p4jHFp-az.
 See “Ann Coulter Still Blind to Abortion” at http://wp.me/p4jHFp-9I.
 See Propaganda: Orwell in the Age of Ann Coulter, available as a free download at www.coulterwatch.com/propaganda.pdf.