Ann Coulter: The “Never Trust a Liberal over 3” Interview
If You Like Ann Coulter, You Can Keep Ann Coulter, Period!
Kam Williams | 11/20/2013, 7:39 p.m.
AC: They’re in the liberal cocoon. Liberals could live their whole lives never having to hear an actual conservative opinion other than the idiotic arguments written for conservative characters on Aaron Sorkin’s little teleplays. As I wrote in my book, Slander, conservatives couldn’t block out liberal opinion if they wanted to, short of going into a coma, in which case they’re not going to be much help fighting Democrats. We’re bombarded with liberal propaganda 24/7, from the early morning shows, Hollywood movies, documentaries and sitcoms, all major newspapers, fashion magazines, the sports pages, public schools, college professors and administrators, etcetera, etcetera, etcetera. Unless liberals specifically seek out Ann Coulter books and columns, which I highly recommend, or tune into Fox News or conservative talk radio, they have no idea what conservatives are thinking. As the saying goes, a fish doesn’t know what water is. Speaking of the sports pages, I have a solution to the furor over the “Washington Redskins” name! They should rename themselves the “Maryland Redskins.” I’m a problem-solver, and you’re welcome.
KW: Yale grad Tommy Russell asks: Do you think liberals and conservatives fit so neatly into the prescribed categories you and other conservative pundits assign to them?
AC: What do you mean by “liberals” and “conservatives”? I believe you are assigning them to precise categories! I’ll explain why you do that. It’s impossible to talk without labels. “Dog” is a label, but that doesn’t mean it’s meaningless, nor does it mean there’s no difference in a Shih Tzu and a Doberman.
KW: Tommy also asks: Do you think the Republican Party is in the midst of a meltdown and permanent recession of significance in national politics now that Tea Party candidates are as energized as ever to push their radical agenda forward after the failed budget standoff and to push out the remaining moderately conservative members of Congress; and core libertarian values of freedom of choice, that could apply to such issues as the legalization of pot, clash with party identity politics and therefore are not supported at large and are visible contradictions for voters who might support a more harmonious party platform?
AC: I discuss this in my new book – it’s not exactly the “Tea Party” per se, but again that is a useful label and I get your point. I speak at a lot of Tea Parties, know a lot of them, and I think I am one. The vast majority of Tea Partiers want to win. We didn’t ask our candidates to mull about rape and abortion on the campaign trail. We want them talking about repealing Obamacare, protecting our second amendment rights and locking up the rapists, not giving them the vote, as Democrats would like to do. But there is an element on the right often mistaken for Tea Partiers, whom I would describe more as dilettantes for whom politics is a matter of acquiring a sense of belonging -- usually a liberal trait. They choose candidates not based on who is the best candidate for the race, but to, say, announce to the world something about themselves: “I am pure! I will not compromise my principles and vote for a pale pastel Republican!” That’s great, a Democrat won because you wouldn’t vote unless Christine O’Donnell was on the ballot. Of course, they’re not the only ones causing problems for the GOP. As I also describe in the book, we have the greedy consultants and ego-driven candidates who run for office just to get a TV show or increase their speaking fees. And we have the “establishment Republicans”-- again, an imperfect label -- pushing widely unpopular ideas on our candidates, such as amnesty.