Anne Coulter is Very Popular Among Conservatives

March 6, 2007 at 10:07 am | Posted in American politics, Bush Administration, conservatives, George W Bush, Massachusetts, Military, Mit Romney, Mitt Romney, neo-conservatives, Republicans | 8 Comments

That’s why she’s just getting a slap on the hand and will continue her crude childish ways. Glenn Greenwald delves further into this cult of contrived masculinity so prevalent in her writings and in conservatives’ beliefs. See, Republicans are pushing an image: “values voters.” This image is that Republicans are macho, masculine, and tough (which might be why in the end Republicans will elect Rudy Giuliani—who better exudes the “tough, masculine” man among Republicans right now?), while Democrats are weak, sniveling, wimpish, feminist cowards. This is the image Republicans want to portray, and in their hearts believe. And this is what Coulter gives them. As Glenn Greenwald states:

As critical as it is to them to feminize Democratic and liberal males (and to masculinize the women), even more important is to create false images of masculine power and strength around their authority figures. The reality of this masculine power is almost always non-existent. The imagery is what counts.

This works exactly the same as the images of moral purity that they work so hard to manufacture, whereby the leaders they embrace — such as Gingrich, Limbaugh, Bill Bennett, even the divorced and estranged-from-his-children Ronald Reagan and Coulter herself — are plauged by the most morally depraved and reckless personal lives, yet still parade around as the heroes of the “Values Voters.” Just as what matters is that their leaders prance around as moral leaders (even while deviating as far as they want from those standards), what matters to them also is that their leaders play-act as strong and masculine figures, even when there is no basis, no reality, to the play-acting.

Ronald Reagan never got anywhere near the military war (claiming eyesight difficulties to avoid deployment in World War II), and he spent his life as a Hollywood actor, not a rancher, yet to this day, conservatives swoon over his masculine role-playing as though he is some sort of super-brave military hero. Meanwhile, Jimmy Carter, who actually graduated the Naval Academy and was assigned to real live nuclear submarines, is mocked as a weak and snivelling coward who should not have a ship named after him.

And the ultimate expression of faux, empty, masculine courage and power is, of course, the Commander-in-Chief himself — the Glorious Leader whom John Podhoretz hailed in the title of his worshippful cult book as The First Great Leader of the 21st Century — with the ranch hats and brush-clearing pants and flight-suit outfits that would make the Village People seethe with jealousy over his costume choices. Just behold this poster which was a much in-demand item at past CPAC events (h/t Digby), which makes as clear as can be how these Bush followers have tried to idolize their Leader:

(Media Matters has the fawning over Bush the “hero” landing on the aircraft. Note the language constantly used.)

Glenn Greenwald continues:

That laughable absurdity really reveals the heart of this movement. It is a cult of contrived masculinity whereby people dress up as male archtypes like cowboys, ranchers, and tough guys even though they are nothing of the kind — or prance around as Churchillian warriors because they write from a safe and protected distance about how great war is — and in the process become triumphant heroes and masculine powerful icons and strong leaders. They and their followers triumph over the weak, effete, humiliated Enemy, and thereby become powerful and exceptional and safe.

He continues:

That is why so many of them who have never been anywhere near the military — and will never go near it even as their wars are endangered by a lack of volunteers — have a monomanical obsession with military glory, with constant displays of how “resolute” and “courageous” they are, with notions of forced “submission” and “humiliation” of their opponents (just take notice of how central a role those concepts play in neoconservative “arguments”), and with depicting those who oppose the wars they cheer on as “cowards” (even when the cowards in question are decorated Marines with 30 years of service).

It is all fake. Where is the neo-conservative who dons his military uniform to join the fight? Where is the real example? It is a show. It is for power, and not for the real thing. This is the depravity of the Republican and conservative base today.

I feel sorry for someone like Mitt Romney who has to pander to these people for their vote. Maybe someday Mitt Romney will regret this YouTube video:

and this picture:

(courtesy of Andrew Sullivan)

And speaking of Romney, what was he doing disparaging his state? What was he doing calling the state he just served for four years the San Francisco of the East? “Massachusetts became center stage for the liberal social agenda – sort of San Francisco east, Nancy Pelosi style.”

Could he be referring to This Nancy Pelosi, mother, and grandmother?


I know I keep updating this particular post, but an acquaintance highlighted why words are important, and why we should watch what we say, and not dismiss words such as those Anne Coulter uses. He directed me to James 3 in the Bible. In James we read:

1 My brethren, be not many masters, knowing that we shall receive the greater condemnation.
2 For in many things we offend all. If any man offend not in word, the same is a perfect man, and able also to bridle the whole body.
3 Behold, we put bits in the horses’ mouths, that they may obey us; and we turn about their whole body.
4 Behold also the ships, which though they be so great, and are driven of fierce winds, yet are they turned about with a very small helm, whithersoever the governor listeth.
5 Even so the tongue is a little member, and boasteth great things. Behold, how great a matter a little fire kindleth!
6 And the tongue is a fire, a world of iniquity: so is the tongue among our members, that it defileth the whole body, and setteth on fire the course of nature; and it is set on fire of hell.

7 For every kind of beasts, and of birds, and of serpents, and of things in the sea, is tamed, and hath been tamed of mankind:
8 But the tongue can no man tame; it is an unruly evil, full of deadly poison.
9 Therewith bless we God, even the Father; and therewith curse we men, which are made after the similitude of God.
10 Out of the same mouth proceedeth blessing and cursing. My brethren, these things ought not so to be.
11 Doth a fountain send forth at the same place sweet water and bitter?
12 Can the fig tree, my brethren, bear olive berries? either a vine, figs? so can no fountain both yield salt water and fresh.
13 Who is a wise man and endued with knowledge among you? let him shew out of a good conversation his works with meekness of wisdom.
14 But if ye have bitter envying and strife in your hearts, glory not, and lie not against the truth.
15 This wisdom descendeth not from above, but is earthly, sensual, devilish.
16 For where envying and strife is, there is confusion and every evil work.
17 But the wisdom that is from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, and easy to be intreated, full of mercy and good fruits, without partiality, and without hypocrisy.
18 And the fruit of righteousness is sown in peace of them that make peace.

Truly inspired words. I know there is much I need to work on too. I’m going to keep in mind those last two verses particularly. The fruit of righteousness is sown in peace of them that make peace.


RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

  1. Dan,

    You forgot Bill O’Reilly–Mr. sexual harassment pig of the year, moral crusader. Excellent post and highlight of Greenwald.

    As for Mitt, well, it is disappointing to see him pander so. To pose with the wicked witch of the right is hardly a highlight of his campaign. Welcome to Alice in Wonderland my friend.

  2. Thanks Guy.

    Mitt’s prostitution to the Right, I think, speaks more about the depravity of the right than of his own morals. I think he may well be a genuinely good guy, but he’s really done some questionable things to become president. And maybe that’s just how it is today in American politics. You really will have to lower your own standards to get the nomination.

  3. And maybe that’s just how it is today in American politics. You really will have to lower your own standards to get the nomination.

    The problem is the policy. Each candidate’s team feels like they have to lower their standards of their candidate to get the votes.

    Republicans are macho, masculine, and tough (which might be why in the end Republicans will elect Rudy Giuliani—who better exudes the “tough, masculine” man among Republicans right now?),

    I disagree–I think if Newt runs–he’s their frontline for the hardline conservative crowd. He’s got the blight of personal problems etc. But he really is making a run for the announcement–no matter what he says.

    As much as I’d rather see Guliani or McCain on the ticket–I just don’t think either is going to get the nomination. As far as Mitt goes, I just think the Mormon thing and his missteps out of the gate are going to get him.

    As far as Ann Coulter being very popular amongst conservatives? That’s just sad. I hate the woman. I seriously hate her. At least Michael Moore is trying to start some sort of discussion.

  4. And, while we’re discussing the moral high road, paved with conservative intentions . . . we now hear the Scooter Libby guilty verdicts, confirming of course what we have known for some time: That at the highest levels of this nation’s leadership men in power have for political gain lied under oath, mislead the American people, and endangered fellow citizens serving this nation. The house of cards begins to tumble

  5. At least Michael Moore is trying to start some sort of discussion.

    He’s also better looking 😉

  6. That whole Scooter Libby trial has been fascinating to follow–from a completely objective stance. The stuff revealed in the trial–everyone’s point of view–it really is fascinating stuff.

  7. He’s also better looking

    This pic gives me nightmares on so many levels.

  8. Scary indeed Sherpa.

    Well, my little pretty, I can cause accidents, too!


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

Create a free website or blog at
Entries and comments feeds.

%d bloggers like this: