How the Coulter Republicans Lost 9/11

I can't take credit for the term "Coulter Republican." However, the term deserves to replace "Goldwater Republican" or "Reagan Republican" in the political lexicon. It represents a form of conservatism that has nothing to do with all those things Goldwater believed in--you know, restraint, small government, balanced budgets, and the like. Those Republicans are nearly gone. The Coulter Republicans are those who follow a set of talking points and stick to it. They never met a straw man they didn't like and never met a dissenting voice undeserving of their contempt.

There are, of course, shades of opinion among the Coulter Republicans. Sure, they might be troubled over Iraq, but they'll never publicly admit that they made a mistake. They'll react to any semblance of bad news by ignoring it and focusing on--ho hum--liberal Democrats. Doesn't matter how nonsensical the rhetoric is, the Coulter Republican doesn't dare deviate from the script. And, of course, they throw in a bit of nastiness to remind their critics that they're better. They're right. They're special. Sure, Americans are equal...but some are more equal than others.

Don't let all the gasps of horror coming from the mainstream media fool you. Ann Coulter's fan base wasn't limited to Rush-worshipping mouthbreathers or dumbass chickenhawk Republicans. She is, after all, a creation of the right-wing oligarchy: a former Scaife stooge raised in the hothouse of the 1980s/1990s conservative movement. They gave her column space in their magazines and newspapers. They signed her to book contracts and happily invited her to appear on their talk shows. Joe Scarborough may try to distance himself from Coulter, but he didn't have any problem with booking her on his show in years before.

They can't say they never took her seriously. They can't say they just see her as an entertainer. If she were, she would've never appeared on "Scarborough Country."

So why would they book someone who wanted to see judges poisoned, reporters murdered by terrorists, liberals beaten with baseball bats? Maybe they found her amusing. Maybe they led themselves to believe it was all a "joke," even though the joke got stale after a few years. Or maybe they LOVED Ann Coulter's schtick, though they'd never admit it. After all, her work is, to quote Al Franken, "political pornography."

But now, thanks to Coulter and the Coulter Republicans, the right wing has lost 9/11 as its bargaining chip. Beforehand, the right wing could repeat "September 11 security September 11 terrorism" like there was no tomorrow. We can all agree that if it weren't for 9/11, Bush would've been a one-term president.

It was a goldmine for the Coulter Republicans. While the "Hollywood liberal elite" were holding telethons and giving money to help the victims, Coulter was calling for the US to invade the Middle East, kill their heads of state, and force their people to convert to Christianity. While Muhummad Ali--a man who was ostracized for refusing to serve in Vietnam--personally visited Ground Zero, the Coulter Republicans were in negotiations for book contracts. Throw in "terror," "America," and few clever ways to tie the terrorists to liberals, and ta daaaaaaaaa!!!! Instant book! Ben Stein's Can America Survive? The Rage of the Left and What to Do About It is a classic example of this kind of tome. Of course, Stein's love of country doesn't extend to USO tours of Iraq (like Al Franken has done) or personal visits to Ground Zero. Maybe his game show could've been titled Win the Money Ben Stein Made When a Couple of Think Tanks Bought His Book to Use as Mulch in Richard Mellon Scaife's Garden.

Gradually, the right wing has lost credibility in just about every major policy affecting America today. What has their administration done in the war on terror? Well, they killed Zarqawi. And then they...and then they...uh...what do you mean, the Taliban's making a comeback in Afghanistan? How about the economy? No comment. Homeland security? Oxymoron. Iraq? What did you say we were there for again? What's the excuse this week?

Through all the disasters, the floundering, the screeching and howling and wailing, the temper tantrums and projection, the finger pointing and the refusal to accept responsibility for anything, the Coulter Republicans still had 9/11. Ah 9/11. How about a fifth anniversary edition with a "Why Democrats Suck" appendix in the back?

But then they went overboard. Coulter trashed four women who'd lost their husbands in the worst terrorist attack in US history. No, Coulter Republicans, she wasn't suggesting they were above criticism. No, she wasn't saying that the left was "using" these women to make a point. No, she was not "joking." She suggested that maybe their husbands were ready to divorce them, that they "enjoyed" losing their husbands, that they were "witches" and "harpies." No matter how you spin it, this wasn't satire or commentary. They had dared to question Bush, demanding an independent 9/11 commission. They even--gasp!--campaigned for Kerry! This after some of them voted for Bush in 2000!

The Coulter Republicans have wasted no time in defending Coulter, the avatar of the current conservative movement. A quick visit to Media Matters will lead you to spirited defenses of Coulter from Mary Matalin, David Horowitz, and Rush Limbaugh.

Here's what they're saying: It's okay to smear the families of the dead. It's okay make money off grieving widows. In short, Matalin, Horowitz, Limbaugh, and the other Coulter Republicans show how much they really care about the victims of 9/11 and the families they left behind. "Griefarazzis"? Obviously, Matalin, Horowitz, and Limbaugh have never lost a loved one. They don't understand the nature of grief.

The Coulter Republicans have painted themselves into a corner. They created this media personality, and now they're stuck with her. If they're so willing to excuse Coulter's viciousness, are they really capable of the same grief and anger that the rest of America felt on 9/11? How can they deny the widows' valid concerns over homeland security? Do they really want another terrorist attack? Are they so desperate to believe Bush is a flawless leader that they'll allow another 9/11 just so Bush can rally the troops? Do they really want more widows, more widowers, more parents burying their sons and daughters, more children without parents? Don't they care about what happens to their fellow Americans?

That's going to be hard for them to explain.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Tell us something we don't already know

We're the ones we've been waiting for, and all that