In between repeated plugs for her old books (get 'em before they're pulped!), Ann Coulter's latest column, posted on some web site you never heard of, addresses "a couple of other facts that some of us are forced to keep repeating because liberals refuse to learn."
These things we do not know about?
The Presidential Daily Briefing of 6 August 2001 and the attack ad Saxby Chambliss ran against Max Cleland in 2002. The dateline of the column is 31 December 2008.
She concludes by flirting with honesty:
Someday, I could stop writing new columns altogether and could just repost columns and book excerpts I've already written disproving the same yarns liberals spin over and over again.
Somewhere before that, she tries to rekindle the old Annthrax Coultergiest by, um, snipping about Kwanzaa, comparing liberals to worms, Stalin, and fruit fly larvae, and making a joke about unions.
Yawn.
I am reminded of nothing so much as this:
2 comments:
Sliding? How about slid! With Obama's election, she is officially and permanently irrelevant.
To think I was once moved to write a poem about this hag. She no longer has that kind of hold on me.
My new year's resolution is never to let her name cross my lips (or blog) again.
As much as I would like to say slid, I think that call is a little premature.
I suppose it's a matter of semantics. Clearly, she's no longer making the cover of, say, Time, and one does not hear much liberal outrage concerning her latest shock-jockery anymore. And she did get eased out of the spotlight at the last CPAC, indicating that even what passes for mainstream conservatism finds her tiresome, an embarrassment, unhelpful, stale, or all of the above.
Perhaps also telling: Her website indicates that you can book her for an appearance through, among others, Premiere Speakers Bureau and Young America's Foundation. Neither appears to agree any longer.
However, there's this: Her latest book (due out on the Feast Day of the Epiphany, probably not coincidentally) is already up to #117 on Amazon, solely through pre-orders. And it's not being published by Regnery but by a non-fringe house.
So, if you define the state of irrelevance to be one where the other side no longer pays attention to her, I agree. But I'd say she's is not quite at that state as long as there's a choir still eager to pay to listen.
By the way, I remember your poem. Thanks for the reminder -- it was worth reading again.
Post a Comment