Vilifying Ann Coulter Is Wrong Way to Seek "Mr. Far Right," Meghan McCain
Having voted for John Kerry in 2004 and switched her registration from independent to Republican as a birthday present for her then presidential hopeful father in 2008, Meghan seemed to be spoiling for a fight with Ann AND eager to remake the Republican Party to her liking.
Articulate, astute, usually amusing and often acerbic Ann Coulter is not perfect, of course (and I prefer Laura Ingraham making the conservative case in her more persuasive, less self-focused but no less passionate, way), but as between Ann and Meghan McCain, Ann's an authentic All-American and Meghan's way off base.
Earlier this month, Senator John McCain's daughter Meghan (who last year lost her campaign to become America's First Daughter) posted an article titled "Looking for Mr. Far Right."
In it, Meghan stated that she had let politics "dictate the kind of men" she dated and both Obama and McCain supporters "turn [her] off"; declared that "[t]he election killed [her] personal life" and immediately modified that assessment to the election put her personal life "on life support"; and lamented: "Of all the things people warned would happen post-election, no one ever said anything about how complicated dating would become. Especially if your dad loses the election.... I fear the election has destroyed my ability and desire to date.... I have become something I used to despise: people who let politics dictate his or her attraction to someone."
Having conceded that she had become despicable by her former standard, Meghan opted to wallow in self-pity. For example, "One extreme fan of my mother’s recently told me I could be 'his Cindy.' And then asked meif I ever wore pearls because they probably would look as good on me as they do on my mother."
The swine!
A supporter of "gay marriage," Meghan told the world: "I have the ultimate Catch-22 in post-election dating. So where does that leave me, and who exactly am I attracted to? Let’s just say I’m spending a lot of time writing and even more time with my girlfriends."
Meghan added that "when it comes to [her] personal life," she doesn't "want to date someone who idolizes my dad" and her "biggest aphrodisiac is an apathetic attitude toward politics.
Ann Coulter definitely does not idolize Meghan's dad, but Ann definitely is not apathetic toward politics," leaving Meghan unhappy about Ann.
Frustrated Meghan, having just announced her search for "Mr. Far Right," promptly sought to get Ann's attention...by attacking Ann in an article titled "My Beef with Ann Coulter."
That tactic wins Meghan the attention and affection of Ann's enemies on the Left, but it won't win much of Ann's attention or any of her affection...or the attention and affection of Mr. Far Right.
Having voted for John Kerry in 2004 and switched her registration from independent to Republican as a birthday present for her then presidential hopeful father in 2008, Meghan seemed to be spoiling for a fight with Ann AND eager to remake the Republican Party to her liking.
Meghan began by lauding President Obama as hip and the Republican Party as not: "It is no secret that being a Republican isn’t the most hip political stance a person can take right now. President Obama has successfully established himself as the hippest politician around....To my fellow Republicans: I’m sorry, I wish I could be more positive about the current 'hipness' of our party. But being a Republican is about as edgy as Donny Osmond."
Why Donny Osmond? Would Meghan have written that if Donny was NOT a Mormon? Has Meghan been poisoned by her paternal grandmother's distaste for Mormons?
To be sure, Meghan really resents that Ann "said Hillary Clinton was more conservative than [her] father during the last election."
So Meghan characterized Ann as "the biggest culprit" in perpetuating negative stereotypes about Republicans."
Meghan: "I straight up don’t understand this woman or her popularity. I find her offensive, radical, insulting, and confusing all at the same time. But no matter how much you or I disagree with her, the cult that follows Coulter cannot be denied.... She was one of the headliners at the recent CPAC conference (but when your competition is a teenager who has a dream about the Republican Party and Stephen Baldwin, it’s not really saying that much)."
"Coulter could be the poster woman for the most extreme side of the Republican Party. And in some ways I could be the poster woman for the opposite."
It's not a position to which Meghan should aspire.
Unlike Meghan, Ann voted for Bush instead of Kerry and supports traditional marriage, not "gay marriage."
And Meghan thinks Ann is the extremist?
Meghan on Meghan and Ann: "I consider myself a progressive Republican, but here is what I don’t get about Coulter: Is she for real or not? Are some of her statements just gimmicks to gain publicity for her books or does she actually believe the things she says? Does she really believe all Jewish people should be 'perfected' and become Christians? And what was she thinking when she said Hillary Clinton was more conservative than my father during the last election? If you truly have the GOP’s best interests at heart, how can you possibly justify telling an audience of millions that a Democrat would be a better leader than the Republican presidential candidate? (I asked Ann for comment on this column, including many of the above questions, but she did not answer my request.)"
Ann IS for real. Ann uses sarcasm and hyperbole to promote both her books and her ideas and sometimes her word choices could have been better. Annis a Christian who thinks Jesus is the Son of God and wants Jews to know that too (and apparently Meghan doesn't think it would be better for Jews, and others, to become Christian). Ann had a legitimate concern that John McCain as President would have been detrimental to the Republican Party, because he has extreme (and erroneous) views of a number of issues, including campaign financing, immigration and environment.
Ms. McCain concluded by saying that Ann's traditional values views have become passe and therefore the Republican Party needs to abandon them in order to survive and suggested that, as a young and recently registered Republican, she (Meghan) knows best: "I am not suggesting that extreme conservatism wasn’t once popular.... I have been a Republican for less than a year. Still, even after losing the election, I find myself more drawn to GOP ideals and wanting to fight for the party’s resurgence. And if figureheads like Ann Coulter are turning me off, then they are definitely turning off other members of my generation as well. She does appeal to the most extreme members of the Republican Party—but they are dying off, becoming less and less relevant to the party structure as a whole. I think most people my age are like me in that we all don’t believe in every single ideal of each party specifically. The GOP should be happy to have any young supporters whatsoever, even if they do digress some from traditional Republican thinking."
What the first 50 days of "the Age of Obama" have demonstrated is the need to return to "traditional Republican thinking."
Unsurprising, Meghan suggests she has a my-way-or-the-highway approach to party politics: "I hope viewers understand Ann Coulter is not the woman we Republicans need representing us right now. The GOP is at a crossroads. I love the Republican Party, but if it turns out I am somehow not conservative enough to please its leaders, it makes me wonder—am I then not worthy of even being a member?"
Ann's Cornell education did not transform Ann a progressive. Too bad the same cannot be said about Meghan's Columbia education.
Michael J. Gaynor has been practicing law in New York since 1973. A former partner at Fulton, Duncombe & Rowe and Gaynor & Bass, he is a solo practitioner admitted to practice in New York state and federal courts and an Association of the Bar of the City of New York member.
Gaynor graduated magna cum laude, with Honors in Social Science, from Hofstra University's New College, and received his J.D. degree from St. John's Law School, where he won the American Jurisprudence Award in Evidence and served as an editor of the Law Review and the St. Thomas More Institute for Legal Research. He wrote on the Pentagon Papers case for the Review and obscenity law for The Catholic Lawyer and edited the Law Review's commentary on significant developments in New York law.
The day after graduating, Gaynor joined the Fulton firm, where he focused on litigation and corporate law. In 1997 Gaynor and Emily Bass formed Gaynor & Bass and then conducted a general legal practice, emphasizing litigation, and represented corporations, individuals and a New York City labor union. Notably, Gaynor & Bass prevailed in the Second Circuit in a seminal copyright infringement case, Tasini v. New York Times, against newspaper and magazine publishers and Lexis-Nexis. The U.S. Supreme Court affirmed, 7 to 2, holding that the copyrights of freelance writers had been infringed when their work was put online without permission or compensation.
Gaynor currently contributes regularly to www.MichNews.com, www.RenewAmerica.com, www.WebCommentary.com, www.PostChronicle.com and www.therealitycheck.org and has contributed to many other websites. He has written extensively on political and religious issues, notably the Terry Schiavo case, the Duke "no rape" case, ACORN and canon law, and appeared as a guest on television and radio. He was acknowledged in Until Proven Innocent, by Stuart Taylor and KC Johnson, and Culture of Corruption, by Michelle Malkin. He appeared on "Your World With Cavuto" to promote an eBay boycott that he initiated and "The World Over With Raymond Arroyo" (EWTN) to discuss the legal implications of the Schiavo case. On October 22, 2008, Gaynor was the first to report that The New York Times had killed an Obama/ACORN expose on which a Times reporter had been working with ACORN whistleblower Anita MonCrief.
Cover
•
Commentary
•
Books & Reviews
•
Climate Change
•
Site Links
•
Feedback
