Gotta Love Ann for Keeping Her Head in the Sand

I still find it amazing that anyone with half a brain could read Ann Coulter and take her seriously, given the fact that she is EXTREMELY fact-challenged, but she keeps publishing and right-wingers keep reading her, so I guess I shouldn't underestimate the intelligence of the other side or their willingness to read what they want to hear.

Anyway, good ol' Ann, (who, remember, has complained that the LEFT only knows how to engage in mean-spirited skull-duggery) takes on the left for the "Jeff Gannon" episode. (If you want to read a hilarious, dead-on and seriously rude take on Ann's column, here's the Rude Pundit's commentary.)

Ann expresses the same wonderment as the rest of the right wing world over the "Jeff Gannon" story, claiming that it shows that Democrats are attacking "Gannon" solely because he is gay, therefore exposing their hypocrisy. (Ann conveniently ignores the fact that the Administration ran on a gay-bashing agenda in '04, but we'll move past this).

Personally, my response to Ann and the others on the right is simply this: What if Clinton Had Done It? (WICHDI?) It's as simple as that. What if this had happened in the Clinton White House? I think we all know the answer to that. Ann might not, because she was too busy introducing Paula Jones' lawyers to Ken Starr back in 1997 and 1998.

Ann tries to equate "Jeff Gannon" using a false name to the fact that Gary Hart and Bill Clinton LEGALLY CHANGE their names (Clinton from Blythe to Clinton to take on his stepfather's name) and John Kerry's grandmother changing their name from Kohn based on fears of anti-semitism in Austria, not to hide a past as a gay prostitute.

But my favorite part is when Ann claims that Maureen Dowd was deliberately deceptive in claiming that she couldn't get a White House pass but "Jeff Gannon" could because, Ann explains, Dowd was talking about a permanent pass, while Gannon got a daily pass. (Ann conveniently fails to note that Gannon apparently got a daily pass EVERY DAY, which is the equivalent of a permanent pass, but facts and accuracy is not her strong suit.) Ann feels compelled to write this:

The entire linchpin of Dowd's column was a lie. (And I'm sure the Times' public
editor will get right on Dowd's deception.)

So where does Ann come out in her column? In response to the fact that "Gannon" has been exposed as a gay hooker and partisan hack posing as a reporter, Ann says this:

Gannon didn't write about gays. No "hypocrisy" is being exposed.

Uhh, Ann. Might want use Google instead of "Right-WingReality-BasedSearchEngine.com." Are you even using Lexis? Gannon wrote repeatedly about gays and even referred to Kerry as potentially the "first gay President." So "the entire linchpin of" Ann's column "was a lie." I'm sure Ann's editor will get right on Ann's deception. Oh. No. Wait. Ann doesn't have an editor, since she was fired from the National Review Online. Well, now we know why.
- posted by Joshua @ 10:21 AM