1524 Barr Avenue, #2, Pittsburgh, Pa. 15205

History Articles
Humor Only
Television Archives
Contact Al

Home arrow Columns

There are 223 Ann Coulter replies, political, humor, nostalgia and tribute columns

Choose the column type BELOW

Your selections will appear BELOW

You've Chosen


 Ann Coulter Reply


 January, 2008


 Ann Coulter - When the End is Really The Beginning

When the End is Really the Beginning

By Al Owens

It was five days that changed the world – twice.

Last Thursday, Barack Obama steamrolled his way into the history books.

This Tuesday, that steamroller lost much of its steam.

It had been the five most peculiar days in modern political history.

That’s thanks to a 24 hour news cycle that had been so famished for a fresh face to apply its incessant hyperbole, that it had declared Obama was the reincarnation of JFK and Martin Luther King, Jr. rolled into one, and that Hillary Clinton was America’s leading candidate for the unemployment line.

None of that came true, of course. But nevertheless, by Wednesday morning, all I could find were smug political pundits rushing to the nearest roundtable discussion to try to act like their faces hadn’t really been covered with Grade AAA eggs.

New Hampshire’s voters didn’t buy the hype. They’d put a win in the Clinton column, and they should have put an end to the self-righteous and meaningless polls-by-the-pound and predictions by-the-minute.

Regrettably, the news must go on. And the pundits must go on, and on, and on and on. Yet, the news media only shares part of the blame for the premature coronation of Obama.

The other presidential candidates (both Democrats and Republicans) bought into the hoopla. So they took turns trying to latch on to that snowball that rolled out of Iowa, rolled into New Hampshire and melted right before our very eyes.

Obama had won the Iowa caucus after making liberal use of the word change.

Suddenly, just about every other candidate started using the “c” word as if they, too, were the (I’ve grown to truly dislike this phrase) “agents of change.”
Keep in mind these are people who are trying to convince America they are leaders - not followers.

During last Saturday’s Democratic debate, those leadership qualities weren’t exactly on full display. The word change was uttered by just about all of the candidates a total of 75 times.

“I want to make change, but I've already made change. I will continue to make change. I'm not just running on a promise of change, I'm running on 35 years of change,” remarked Clinton, as if she’d actually invented the word change.

It was the same with the Republican presidential candidates, who showed they know a good battle cry when they hear one. They injected that word into just about answer during their two weekend debates.

Mitt Romney, who always seems eager to try any ploy to get him some votes, would have tried to use the word change, no matter what he was asked. “Governor Romney, what are your feelings about the status quo?” He’d reply, “I’ve changed the status quo in the past, and I’ll change the status quo time and time again. I’ve always relied on the philosophy that the status quo can’t really be the status quo, unless I’ve changed it.”

So the news media somehow figured that Barack Obama had altered the entire presidential campaign landscape by using one word.
After all, there have been millions of words spoken in more than two dozen debates, in hundreds of interviews, and in all kinds of television commercials in the interest of each of the presidential candidates. But the entire 2008 presidential campaign had been sent off into a new direction by the repeated use a single six letter word.

At the same time, there were post-debate gum beating sessions that proved to be funnier than they could ever be enlightening.

Fox News has Frank Luntz. He’s the guy who claims to have invented that terribly annoying device that indicates the approval or disapproval of individual candidates as they speak during debates or speeches. So, after most debates, Luntz appears with his gadget and he shows a particular candidate speaking with a graph going across the screen (and the candidate’s face) as he or she speaks. It’s like an instant poll that means absolutely nothing. Luntz appeared right after the Republican debate on Sunday night. He appeared without that silly contraption. He interviewed people who’d watched the debate at a New Hampshire eatery instead.

Just about everybody he interviewed said they believed Mitt Romney won the debate handily. Most of them claimed they would actually change their vote to support him.

On Tuesday night, Romney lost badly. That impromptu poll Luntz had taken on Sunday night was no more accurate than the bucket full of major polls that were taken that seemed to indicate Hillary Clinton would lose badly on Tuesday night.

All day long, before the primary returns came in, the pundits recited the poll numbers, and they gleefully talked about the end of the Clinton Dynasty.

Even her political operatives appeared to be shaken and glum.

I think there were people in Hollywood ready to produce a “Fall of a Would Be American Icon” movie that would be released by election day.

I sat, watched and secretly wished all of the pundits would be wrong.
Not out of any particular allegiance to the Clintons. I just thought it would hilarious watching all of the supposed political experts back pedal en masse.
The results came in. The pundits were wrong. By Wednesday morning, they were struggling to find answers for one of the biggest media blunders since they announced Dewey had won the presidency.

I now know the difference between fragile and flimsy.

Fragile was the lead Obama had coming out of Iowa. Flimsy is the information we’ve all been spoon fed since he got that lead.