1524 Barr Avenue, #2, Pittsburgh, Pa. 15205
412.919.5843
freedoms@bellatlantic.net

Home
Biography
Columns
History Articles
Humor Only
Responses
Television Archives
Contact Al

Home arrow Columns
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

Category

 Ann Coulter Reply

Published

 August, 2007

Synopsis

 Ann Coulter - Young Republicans are Tough Until it Counts!

It’s Hard Out There For a Young Republican


By Al Owens
Ann Coulter has a unique way of steering clear of the truth – and with brutal force. I think they call that lying!

Her assertion that the recent CNN YouTube presidential debate didn’t attract a “younger,” “hipper,” audience is both misleading and silly.

According to the Nielsen ratings, that debate attracted more young viewers (in the 18-34 age range) than any primary presidential debate in history!

Of course, Coulter and her mini-me puppet Michelle Malkin, are running around claiming the debate was, in some way, a ratings bust (Michelle Malkin: CNN/YouTube (or is it YawnTube?) debate ratings are in: Not so "historic") – but that doesn’t tell the real story.

To be honest, a Monday night debate wasn’t supposed to attract as many viewers as the previous CNN Democratic debate held on a Sunday night in June. Sunday nights are usually the most watched nights of the television week. But according to Broadcasting and Cable, which reports on such matters, “The YouTube debate did attract a larger percentage of 18-34 year old viewers (407,000) than any (primary) debate in cable news history.”

I guess that pretty much deflates the notion that that particular Democratic presidential debates mainly appealed to rotund, middle-aged school teachers.

I’m wondering if Ann Coulter thinks that young Republican viewers of Republican debates are really the “hip” ones.

You know those “brave” members of young Republican groups who are all too willing to risk life and limb to fight for our country – in business suits. Their favorite weapons are other people’s kids.

These are “patriotic” Americans who couldn’t find YouTube with a search engine.

Coulter would have to call them “hip”, because she’d never have the occasion to call them soldiers. They just aren’t built for that.

There’s a video currently making its rounds on the internet that’s getting a lot of attention. (You can find it on YouTube, if you’re not a young Republican). Just type “Chicken Hawk,” and it’ll nearly jump out at you.

That video, along with a number of pages devoted to “Chicken Hawks”, reveals the hypocrisy of those tough young Republicans who know how to talk a good war, but who don’t quite know how to find military recruiters. I’m stopping short of calling them cowards. Well, no I’m not!

The video I’m talking about features a writer for The Nation magazine, Max Blumenthal, who goes to The College Republican National Convention in Washington, D.C. in early July. He finds lots of “hip” young Republican college students who all seem to know that we must “fight al-Qaida in Iraq, so we don’t have to fight them over here.” Personally, I’ve always read that as “We want other people to fight in Iraq, so we don’t get our fingernails dirty over here,” but that’s just me!

Those fightin’ young Republicans do curiously draw blanks when Blumenthal asked why they aren’t willing to go “Fight them over there – now.”

The excuses are both sad and hilarious. These are “war supporters” who simply have better things to do.

One even claims, “I don't think it's for me. I was a football player, but I don't think I could handle some of the training they go through.” He’d probably join up if they promised the enemy would shoot at him with water pistols.

Blumenthal even refers to them as “Dick Cheney Republicans” – to their faces. Those “hip” future “leaders” of America weren’t quite “hip” enough to know that Blumenthal was having fun at their expense.

Being a Dick Cheney Republican means that they, as he was, a war supporter without having to fight one. Cheney showed great stateside heroism five times when he’d managed to get five deferments that kept him out of Vietnam when he was of draft age. He’d later tell an interviewer in 1989 that, "I had other priorities in the '60s than military service."

See, Dick Cheney is not only the Vice-President, he’s the father of the modern Chicken Hawk movement.

The inability for those young Republicans to realize they were being made fools of by Max Blumenthal just may not suit some hair brained conservatives. There’s been a bit of discussion that that kind of stupidity should result in having their right to vote taken from them.

Well, at least one conservative writer is thinking that way. He’s Jonah Goldberg. He writes a column for the L.A. Times. He’s on the warpath against people maintaining the right to vote if they’re not very smart. (That kind of thing could put the president’s vote in jeopardy!)

Goldberg seems to think that we shouldn’t make it easier to vote, we should make it harder. In his latest column, he offers the daffiest idea I’ve seen since that, “Brownie, you’re doing a heckuva job,” thing.

“Why not test people about the basic functions of government? If you threaten to take the vote away from the certifiably uninformed, voter turnout will almost certainly get a boost. A voting test would point the arrow of civic engagement up, instead of down, sending the signal that becoming an informed citizen is a valued accomplishment,” Goldberg irrationally claims.

Given that kind of drivel, Goldberg himself would suffer increased scrutiny on election day.

He probably didn’t go to history class the day they discussed those fine people down south who gave tests about the U.S. Constitution to African-Americans in order to prevent them from voting.

Somebody please tell Jonah Goldberg that voting “tests” have been tried and were rendered a sad chapter in American history.

And somebody please tell a real conservative to tell that flake to keep those kinds of ideas to himself!