Perspectives; Thoughts; Comments; Opinions; Discussions

Posts tagged ‘op-ed’

Ann Coulter Op-ed: What Now?


Commentary by Ann Coulter Ann Coulter | Posted: Nov 04, 2020 5:33 PM

The opinions expressed by columnists are their own and do not necessarily represent the views of Townhall.com.
What Now?

Source: AP Photo/Patrick Semansky)

Trending

This may be the strangest election in history in that there is no evidence that any sizable group of people want Biden for president.

It’s his fourth time running for that office. This year, Biden lost three primaries in a row, coming in fourth in the Iowa caucus, fifth in New Hampshire a distant second in Nevada. At the end of February, he had accumulated a paltry 14 delegates — compared to 45 for Bernie Sanders and 26 for Pete Buttigieg.

Then James Clyburn said, Vote for Biden and African Americans in South Carolina voted for Biden. (Although the black vote is NOT monolithic, they decided to make an exception this one time and vote monolithically.)

Democrats never looked back.

Biden has nothing going for him — no constituency, no fanatical supporters, just a career in politics that stretches back 50 years.

Bill Clinton had Southern Democrats and baby boomers. Gore had the global warming zealots. George Bush had conservative Christians and Texans. Even Hillary had fanatical supporters. Remember the PUMAs (Party Unity My A$$)? How about the weeping loons at the Javits Center on election night 2016?

Will anyone weep that Biden lost? No, they’ll weep because Trump won. Yes, much of Trump’s vote hated Hillary, but surely at least 70 percent of them actually supported Trump. Ninety-nine percent of Biden’s vote is: “I Hate Trump.”

How did Joe Biden become the nominee? Because he was the candidate most acceptable to black people. Why? Because he was Obama’s vice president. There’s a coalition built on rock.

Combine the empty suit from Delaware with Kamala Harris, who was polling at about two percent among Democrats before she dropped out of the primaries. Harris added nothing to the ticket — except Biden’s ridiculously narrow, self-imposed requirement that his vice president be a woman of color.

Unfortunately for him, there just aren’t a lot of massively impressive black women who are elected Democrats right now. Barbara Jordan is dead. Shirley Chisholm is dead. Either of them would have been chosen over Kamala.

When Harris’ campaign crashed and burned, I thought I’d embarrassed myself by predicting she would be the Democrats’ 2020 presidential nominee back in 2016 before I’d ever heard her speak — before she’d even won her Senate race.

But on this, I was right: She strokes all the media’s erogenous zones.

— She’s got the Hollywood glamour!

Why, I think she’s even better looking than Michelle Obama! Not as gorgeous as Beyonce, but beauty like THAT only happens once a century.

(Harris will be in a dozen Vogue fashion shoots.)

— She’s so cool!

She wears sneakers, and cited Tupac as the “best rapper alive.” (Wait, what? Oh, we didn’t know Tupac was murdered in Las Vegas 20 years ago, either.)

— She’s presentable in Hollywood and the Hamptons.

Poor Al Sharpton has been lurking around for 30 years, but Kamala is someone we can invite to our apartments.

Harris isn’t a huge hit with the Democratic base. She’s a hit with the people who make decisions for the party. My prediction is redeemed.

If voters had been forced to focus on Harris, Trump would’ve won in a landslide. But this election was entirely a referendum on Trump. It’s irrelevant who he’s running against. Maybe if they had dug up Hitler to run against him other issues would have come up, but even that’s not a sure thing.

Harris sent out a tweet the day before the election saying, “There’s a big difference between equality and equity,” along with a video demanding that “we all end up at the same place.”

Is anyone listening? She’s not saying everyone should have an equal opportunity, but that everyone should get the same stuff.

Hello? Suburban women? Harris wants to move poor people next door to you whether they can afford the house or not. It’s as if Harris was running a test: Do people even care what we’re running on?

Democrats could come out for vivisection of little children. No one cares! A significant share of the electorate was voting for Anyone But Trump.

The media had whipped enough of the population into such a blind Trump hatred that the Democrats’ vetting process for Biden was: “What’s your name? OK, you’ll do.”

What happens if this bland, place-holding figurehead is sworn in as president? Assume on Jan 20th, Trump’s gone. Now what?

The media can’t blame the next black man killed by cops on Trump and they can’t turn off the coronavirus panic. Does the virus suddenly go away because someone new is in the White House? The toughest job for the media is going to be coming up with an excuse to put Trump on the front page once he’s gone.

Have they thought about what happens next?

Ann Coulter Letter: “How to Write a New York Times Op-Ed in Three Easy Steps”


waving flagAnn Coulter  | 

URL of the original posting site: http://humanevents.com/2015/09/02/how-to-write-a-new-york-times-op-ed-in-three-easy-steps/?utm_source=coulterdaily&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=nl

How to Write a New York Times Op-Ed in Three Easy Steps

Today we’ll talk about how to write a New York Times op-ed in 45 minutes or less. We all like labor-saving tips!The main point to keep in mind is that your op-ed is not intended to elucidate, educate or amuse. These are status pieces meant to strike a pose, signaling that you are a good person.After reading your op-ed, readers should feel the warm sensation of being superior to other people — those who don’t agree with you. The idea is to be in fashion. It’s all about attitude, heavy on eye-rolling.

 

(1) Psychoanalyze conservatives as paranoid and insecure.

Liberals — who, to a man, have been in psychoanalysis — enjoy putting people they disagree with on the operating table and performing a vivisection, as if conservatives are some lower life form. 

Thus, for example, an op-ed in this week’s Times by Arthur Goldwag was titled “Putting Donald Trump on the Couch.”

This should not be confused with Justin A. Frank’s 2004 book, “Bush on the Couch,” offering a detailed diagnosis of Bush’s alleged mental disorders.

Nor should it be confused with a column that went up on Daily Kos the day after I wrote this column, psychoanalyzing me. (I’m just glad I snubbed the guy in high school.)

Goldwag explained: “Mr. Trump’s angry certainty …”

Let’s pause right here. I am obsessed with Donald Trump. I wish I could cancel my book tour and just lie in bed watching his speeches all day long. I’m like a lovesick teenager studying Justin Bieber videos. And I’ve never seen Trump look angry.

(Goldwag continued) ” … that immigrants and other losers are destroying the country while the cultural elites that look down on him stand by and do nothing resonates strongly with the less-educated, lower-income whites who appear to be his base.”

Yes, Trump’s base are “less-educated.” This is as opposed to Democratic voters, who couldn’t figure out how to fill in a Florida ballot in 2000.

True, writing like this will expose your own gigantic paranoia at being excluded from historic WASP America. If you start obsessing over the Augusta National Golf Club (as the Times did for one solid decade), people will naturally begin to suspect that you’re resentful toward traditional American culture.

But I am not giving lessons in self-esteem here. I’m trying to help you dash off an op-ed in record time. Psychoanalysis has been liberals’ go-to move forever.

Following the 1964 presidential election, the American Psychiatric Association was forced to issue “the Goldwater rule,” prohibiting shrinks from psychoanalyzing people they’d never met, after a few thousand of them had issued their professional opinion that Barry Goldwater was nuts. (A “frightened person,” “paranoid,” “grossly psychotic” and a “megalomaniac.”)

Some Times writer probably produced an op-ed calling Calvin Coolidge “paranoid.”

It’s not very interesting, but, again, the sole purpose of your op-ed is to assure the status-anxious that they are better than other people.

(2) The perfect hack phrase is to say conservatives are “frightened of the country changing around them.”

Examples:

– “The Tea Party, to be most benign about it, is primarily white, it is witnessing a country changing around it. It feels angry, feels — the diversity.” — Katrina Vanden Heuvel, MSNBC, May 24, 2012

(You want angry? Go to an Al Sharpton rally.)

– “Old white guys (are) caught in a demographic vice, right? (They) are frankly a little nervous, right? The country is changing around them. … The country is becoming more brown, and more — younger. And the values are changing. Gay rights, women are working. I mean all of these things are happening and they are not quite sure what to do.” — Jamal Simmons, MSNBC, June 15, 2013

– “I don’t think these are organized hate groups. These are, by and large, more or less everyday citizens who are very fearful of the way the world is changing around them.” — Mark Potok, (spokesman for the country’s leading hate group, the Southern Poverty Law Center) in “Changing World Draws Racist Backlash,” The Philadelphia Tribune, June 28, 2010

I thought it was a nice gesture that Mark admitted that conservatives are not “organized hate groups.” We owe you one, Mark! You’re a super guy.

(3) Call conservatives “aggrieved” as often as possible.

Yes, this from the party of reparations, #BlackLivesMatter, comparable worth, “Lean In,” the DREAM Act and so on. If the Democratic Party were a reality TV show, it would be called “America’s Got Grievances!”

Examples:

– “‘We don’t have victories anymore,’ Mr. Trump told those deeply aggrieved Americans in June.” — Arthur Goldwag, op-ed: “Putting Donald Trump on the Couch,” The New York Times, Sept. 1, 2015

– “Mr. Bush has to win over a fair chunk of the aggrieved, frightened Trump voters.” — New York Times editorial, Aug. 26, 2015

– “You have this aggrieved conservative industry that makes their money by being aggrieved.” — John Feehery, Republican spokesman for former Speaker J. Dennis Hastert, quoted in New York Times, Jan. 15, 2015

You’re doing this not just for the $75 you’ll make for writing a Times op-ed. Dreadful hacks meet a need.

A lot of people are followers by nature. They just want to be told: Here are the politicians you admire, and here are the ones you disdain; here are the people you worship, and here are the ones you disparage; here are the TV shows you like, and here are the ones you despise.

Times writers are like personal shoppers for people too lazy to form their own opinions. Just don’t imagine that this is good writing, comedy or art. But it’s not bad for something you can dash off in about 45 minutes!

In God We Trust freedom combo 2

Tag Cloud

%d bloggers like this: