The J Stands for Jackass
Ann Coulter
(Archive)
October 14,
2005
In a world full of wonders there are a myriad of things to loathe, and in my
time, I've loathed more than a few of them. Ted Kennedy, activist judges,
Islamic fundamentalists, calories, and of course, President erect, Bill 'hot
pants' Clinton. But all these targets seem to pale when I contemplate the
pasty-faced doughboy known as Michael J. Gaynor. Oh my god, look at that
mug - does that
ghastly pink blob not have 'kick me' written all over it?
And kick I shall. Gaynor, by way of background,
is a 'columnist' for the third-rate conservative publication MichNews, a
repository of lockstep political posturing. And he says he's a lawyer
as well! In his bio, we learn that 'he graduated in the top 10% of his class
at St. John's University of Law'. Big woof. Not exactly the University of
Michigan, is it Mikey?
Okay, okay, not to be elitist - nothing wrong
with St. John's if you aspire to head up a tiny law firm, as Mikey does. But
he also pretends to be a writer, a man with serious ideas. Someone
whose opinion counts. Don't make me loose my lunch (egg salad on
saltine, and three grapes). And as of late, he's jumped onto the 'bash Ann
Coulter bandwagon'.
The bandwagon is weighted down with the
presidential bootlickers who refuse to cry wolf no matter how many times
George Bush betrays core conservative beliefs, as made so evident by his
picks for the Supreme Court. It seems that I now get to be the public face
of ridicule for all these peons because I have the guts to stand up
and say 'What the heck happened to the emperor's pants?' (A question we
didn't even need to ask during the Clinton years.)
Well, bring it on - I get paid to be
controversial. What really grills my cheese about Gaynor is the fact that he
has taken to printing my columns in their entirety, interjecting his snark
between paragraphs. For a 'lawyer' who claims to have litigation work in
copyright infringement, this strikes me as more than a little disingenuous.
See you in court, Mikey. With any luck you'll be defending your own dumb
ass.
But first, let's turn it around. Since most of
the words are mine, I'm reprinting all of Mikey's latest column, 'HARRIET
MIERS TO THE SUPREME COURT, ANN COULTER TO JAPAN'. (Oh my, what a clever
title - what's the matter Mikey - CAP LOCK GET STUCK?). For easier reading,
my words appear in green, Mikey's in red, and my comments in black. Roll it.
Physically fit
(that's right, punk) Ann Coulter's follow-up piece
on the Miers nomination--"Does
This Law Degree Make My Resume Look Fat?”--demonstrates that smart
(jealous?), slender (really,
really jealous) Ann should not be on the United
States Supreme Court (kiss my ass), but
fails to show that Harriet Miers should not serve there.
Last week
Ann's irritating elitism took flight
(and
first class, too, not coach like you).
Ann wrote that
"[H]arriet Miers went to
Southern Methodist University Law School, which is not ranked at all by the
serious law school reports"
(that's right, dork - at least your school was number 65, woof woof)
and described the job of Supreme Court justice as
"a
mind-numbingly tedious job suitable only for super-nerds trained in legal
reasoning like John Roberts"
(I guess you
would qualify for the nerd part!).
It seems fair to say that
elitism and jealousy motivate Ann's opposition to Ms. Miers, as I noted in
ANN COULTER: MEOW!.
(another rip-off by Mister Copyright Infringer - thanks for the link!)
Ann wrote in her first article on the Miers
nomination, with reference to Supreme Court justiceships:
"[S]ome jobs are so dirty, you can only send in
someone who has the finely honed hatred of liberals acquired at elite
universities to do them." (What is this geeky thing he does with
putting the first letter in brackets? Something they taught him at St.
John's to look lawyerly?)
Ann's
years at Cornell and Michigan apparently were psychologically damaging for
her.
(Apparently your years at Beaver Community College and St. John's were
mentally damaging to you, bozo!)
Ann
initially did not oppose Ms. Miers on sexist grounds. Some did.
(Name
names, lawyer boy!)
But Ann is sooo opposed to Ms. Miers' nomination that she proceeded to bash
the First Lady for noting sexist opposition
(kissy kiss kiss, they'll
still never notice you)
and yearned for "the good old days":
"A Supreme Court
nomination may not have been the ideal time for Laura Bush to start acting
like 'Buy One, Get One Free' Hillary Clinton. At least President Clinton
only allowed his wife to choose the attorney general. (Remember the good old
days when first ladies only got to pick the poet laureate and the White
House china pattern?)
Those were the good
old days. Ah, Bill Clinton - whoever thought I'd end up missing you? Little
George has shown me the way.
"Between cooking segments on the 'Today' show this week, Laura rolled out
the straw-man — sorry, "straw-person" — argument that the criticism of Miers
was rooted in 'sexism' (which is such a chick thing to say).
"I'm a gyno-American[™],
and I strenuously object.
"The only sexism involved in the Miers nomination is the administration's
claim that once they decided they wanted a woman, Miers was the best they
could do. Let me just say, if the top male lawyer in the country is John
Roberts and the top female lawyer is Harriet Miers, we may as well stop
allowing girls to go to law school."
Four paragraphs! Four paragraphs in a row of
mine this loser uses. Four very funny, cleverly worded, slightly subversive
but imbued with a truth that cannot be denied paragraphs. Mikey, however,
not only has been unable to develop a sense of irony, he can't even string
together a handful of sentences.
Alas, Ann
went to a top-tier law school
(even
better than St. John's!)
and clerked for a federal appellate judge
(wow,
there is so much jealousy here that I guess I should have put Mikey's
comments in green!),
but was not one of President Bush's choices for the United States Supreme
Court. (And
you know that how, toad boy? Wasn't it reported that most of the candidates
asked for their names to be removed from consideration? Learn to do your
research, lizard boy.)
Now comes the part where Mikey lists all of Dame
Harriet's accomplishments. Let me summarize - she's the bomb!
Ann
omitted nearly all of that information and instead meanly (aww,
did I hit a nerve?) mocked Ms. Miers' impressive
accomplishments:
"Ah, but perhaps you were
unaware of Miers' many other accomplishments. Apparently she was THE FIRST
WOMAN in Dallas to have a swimming pool in her back yard! And she was THE
FIRST WOMAN with a safety deposit box at the Dallas National Bank! And she
was THE FIRST WOMAN to wear pants at her law firm! It's simply amazing! And
did you know she did all this while being a woman?"
Come on - that's funny
stuff!
Then Ann
made the mind-boggling argument that the Miers' nomination is an act of
condescension toward women!
(I
might note, in passing, that some minds are easier to boggle than others,
although there is a distinct possibility that parrot boy doesn't even have
enough gray matter to be boggled.).
"I don't know when
Republicans became the party that condescends to women, but I am not at all
happy about this development. This isn't the year 1880."
You're right about it not being 1880, Ann!
(Well now that's just a brilliant observation, isn't it? Think doofus boy is
just being ironic? Ha! He doesn't even know the meaning of the word! Read
on...)
And
you are right that
"in 1880, Miers would not
have been the 'most qualified' of all women lawyers in the U.S., of which
there were 75." Miers
not having been born until the middle of the twentieth century. (Oh
my god! Who else filled out Brainiac's graduating class - the Wu Tang Clan?)
Let me just summarize the next few paragraphs
before you go to sleep. Blah blah blah blah blah blah blah. (I have a
limit on the number of witticisms I like to use in a given day, and I've
still got Hannity & Colmes to do tonight.)
My, my.
The Coulter Supreme Court policy...
(Jeez,
he's still droning on. Time for more summary.)
Blah blah blah blah blah blah blah.
Ann
added:
"Today, women make up
about 45 percent of the students at the nation's top law schools."
True. But how does that relate to Ms. Miers' law school years, more than
three decades ago?
(Gawd!
He copied all these words from me and has apparently learned nothing.)
Time goes forward, not backward.
(Mikey
obviously minored in physics.)
Having
done her best to denigrate Ms. Miers' accomplishments, Ann tried to defend
herself and others against "elitism" charges and demanded "merit"
appointments.
Now Einstein begins his defense of quota
appointments... at least that's what I think he did next. I accidentally on
purpose spilled half of a mocha frappuccino on his column (harder than it
sounds, since it was on-line, but well worth the effort), flicked on CNN for
the headlines, smoked a couple of
Gauloises Blondes (the favorite of elitists everywhere), and when I
returned, he was still talking.
(The blot stops here. A worthy slogan for Gaynor, ne pensez-vous
pas?) ...that shouts out 'Supreme Court material'!
That is, unless you think any female who manages to pass the bar exam has
achieved a feat of unparalleled brilliance for her gender."
Having disqualified all
SMU Law grads from Supreme Court service (absolutely),
Ann blithely disparaged the Texas Bar Association as
"a dumping ground for
losers."
Just how broad is that brush you use to paint, Ann? (Broad
enough to paint a target on your ass, wonder boy!)
Ann, who has never been a judge, wisely disassociated
herself from the idea that prior judicial service should be required of
Supreme Court nominees. (You know what - I think this guy is in
love with me. In his own weird way. I mean, he just called me wise, he
talked about all of my accomplishments, he said I was mind-boggling... I
think he called me pretty - let me go back and double check.)
No he did not! And he used
mind-boggling in a negative context. Screw you, buddy! I'm going to
summarize all the way to the end.
Blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah.
Judgmental
Ann's last whack:
"The
problem with Miers is something entirely different — and entirely within the
meaning of 'advice and consent': Miers is no more qualified to sit on the
Supreme Court than I am to be a sumo wrestler. (Hee, hee, hee)
The hearings aren't going to change that; they will just make it more
obvious.
"I genuinely feel sorry for Miers. I'm sure she's a lovely woman, brighter
than average, and well-qualified for many important jobs. (Like
presidential babysitter.) Just not the job Bush
has nominated her for. The terrible thing Bush has done to Miers is to force
people who care about the court to say that."
Imagine
how Ann would be acting if she did not "genuinely feel sorry for" Ms. Miers!
(Yeah, I'd probably do a hatchet job similar to the scalping I'm
giving you, toad boy!)
Fair-minded Americans will keep an open mind and decide for themselves. But
thank you, Ann, (you're welcome, dork face)
for setting the bar for Ms. Miers so low. (And it is low indeed)
After those hearings, perhaps you'll decide to fatten up yourself and your
own resume and take up sumo!
Well, there you go. Apparently St. John Wart's
School for Legal Dunderheads does not teach the fine art of synopsis. Or
linear thinking. Or the common sense needed to avoid a copyright lawsuit.
Heaven help us if Bush has the opportunity to make another pick for the
Supreme Court. Given the law of diminishing returns, we might just end up
with Pillsbury Doughboy Gaynor.
|
