Unapologetic, Unsinkable, Unwavering Ann Coulter

Editor’s note: We at HUMAN EVENTS are pleased to bring you this week a series of profiles from the Clare Boothe Luce Policy Institute​​.  These are profiles of influential and prominent conservative women who have made a tremendous impact for the better on this great country.

Had she been born a century ago, Ann Coulter would have been a movie star. She’s got movie star eyes: They’re big and round and they lock onto you with the intensity and fire that silver nitrate film was invented for. And she’s got a movie star laugh: It’s full and round and loud when she wants it to be, and she almost always wants it to be. But more than her starlet eyes and her ravishing laugh, Ann Coulter is having fun. She loves being the unsinkable, unapologetic Ann Coulter.

And that drives the left around the bend, which is reason enough to list Ann as one of the nation’s top conservatives, let alone top female conservatives.

We already know the basics: Ann is a dazzlingly gifted polemicist. She’s a scary-smart writer—readers of her latest book, Demonic: How the Liberal Mob is Endangering America will have noticed a new level of power and philosophy in her writing. On television, where we all (sadly) get increasingly more of our information, Ann Coulter is a dervish of debate and verbal smarts: Ann never backs down, never shrugs a question and, what’s more, alone among the pundits (left and right) she’s never weasel-worded an answer.

This gets her into trouble—there are protests in the universities, outrage in the left-wing press, and general bafflement among the smug media courtesans. How could this blonde she-devil capture so many readers? How can this troublemaking, outspoken lady, clad in her chic little dresses and glamour-girl shoes, be so popular?

It’s easy to understand why she’s popular with conservatives. Ann is our powerhouse, our Patton. Ann marches in front of our parade with a fearless wit, and in sexy heels, too. When conservatives read the New York Times or watch CNN and find themselves shouting at the television or tossing the paper down in disgust, more often than not they’re wishing that Ann Coulter was there on the set, or in the editorial meeting, to set those lefties straight.

But her appeal is a lot broader than that. More liberal friends than I can count have come up to me, when they hear that Ann and I are friends, to say, “I don’t agree with her on much, but for some reason, I love Ann Coulter.”

Here’s the reason: She’s got style. She’s got courage. She’s got a wicked and infectious sense of humor.  She’s the love child of John Wayne and Carole Lombard and we’re lucky to have her on our side.

Sign Up
  • JackOfAllTrades84

    I don’t understand libs’ “Coulter Derangement Syndome “. She’s kind of a conservative equivalent of Bill Maher (sorry if the comparison offends, but) her MO is to say completely non-literal stuff which she knows the libs will go nuts over, and the libs take the bait, and they think they’re “owning her” or something by screaming “Ann wants us to convert Iraqis to Christianty!” or “Ann doesn’t want women to vote!”. nope, they’re just getting her name out there, lol. Plus Bill Maher says stuff just as ‘provocative’, but no one seems to care. It’s just selective outrage.

    I think an easy way to understand the big difference between liberals and conservatives is – whenever Ann says something off-color, libs will scream and rage and compare her to Hitler, Satan, the Antichrist, etc and attack her looks. When Bill Maher says something off-color, conservatives will just ignore it and go about their lives.

  • 8Pillars

    ha – looked like I touched a nerve, there, skippy!

  • 8Pillars

    why don’t you explain that nonsensical comment, genius?  What a clown you are, following me around like my own private puppet

  • JackOfAllTrades84

    As opposed to who? Bill Maher, the Daily Kos, etc. Yep, they’re all so much more objective right? Hey at least Coulter doesn’t claim to be simply “reporting facts” – she’s open about her “polemical” style.

  • sqrt_cos_180

    I disagree.  I remember her on-line eulogy to Ron Silver…she would be a dedicated and loving spouse, if that article were a clue.  IMHO, of course.

  • JackOfAllTrades84

    She doesn’t even have to try, all she has to do is make some ‘off-color’ comment which only a complete idiot would take literal (ex. her comment about women voting), and the liberals go berserk for absolutely no reason. I bet if the liberals didn’t document every one-liner she makes on their blogs, she wouldn’t even have the book sales she does, so the libs just help her out due to their inability to get over themselves, it’s funny.

  • NoCrud

    McCain was against abortion, against same-sex “marriage” and for a strong military. Soooo, are you one of those who says, “Anyone but Obama… Oh, wait! Anyone but Obama — and McCain.” Idiot!

    What lost the election was the fools that voted a third party. Those who voted for a man, a hero, and not for the country.

    OK, let’s see the hands. Who thinks that America would not be in this gruesome situation if McCain were president? Still have your head in the mud?

    And Ron Paul is again depending on his worshipers to cast their vote for him. Other candidates, even Romney, said that if they are not the selected candidate, they will instruct their followers to vote for the Republican selectee. Why? Because any good, thinking person and most political experts will tell you that the ONLY entity capable of winning against the Democrats is the Republican Party. Except the Ron Paulicians.

  • Proud2bfromtheUSA

    bah to each his own you like skinny women I like’em with curves live and let live I say.

  • NoCrud

    Dreamer… Sarah Palin was muzzled and still, with McCain, gave Obama a run for his money.

    Do you honestly believe that if the Obamaroids had worked honestly in the election that they would have won? Just like JFK winning because Mayor Daly told him that “with the help of a few good men” he (JFK) would win against Nixon. Three months after the election, enough votes were found in a lake in the Chicago area that would have won the election for Nixon. And we saw the same filthy Chicago tactics in operation in ’08. Not with lost votes but with votes bused in and with voter intimidation and with propaganda-like enticement of the young, mush-for-brains Yoots voting for The Messiah.

    And now we see the Obamaroids busy guaranteeing a win in 2012. The we will see Obama complete his plan to Globalize America and then the American dream will only be a memory.

  • NoCrud

    The “moderators” in the debates are just like pollsters who steer the conclusion of the final view of their work any old way they want.

    The ONLY good way to have a debate is to have a set of questions that ALL on the debate get to answer and no personal attacks until those questions are asked and answered.

    In one debate, Michelle Bachmann only got 1-1/2 minutes of mike time. How is this fair when Romney/Perry/Cain get over 75% of the total time?

    Personal interviews with EVERY candidate, like happened with Hannity, is also a good way to see the candidate at his/her best/worst. On the other hand, if the debates were run with rigid rules of debate and breaking a rule gets the rule-breaker dropped from the debate, then maybe a debate would interest me.

  • NoCrud


  • NoCrud

    For Moderator Purposes re Leroy’s surname…

  • RUexperienced

    The Palin quotes attacking the other conservatives running against Romney are from her own interviews or her own emails.  Nothing is from some “secret Facebook account.” (????)  Like or not, she owns her disrespectful remarks.  And I have seen no comments from Ann Coulter that has “trashed” Palin nearly as bad as Palin has “trashed” other conservatives in the race for president.

    And if Palin wanted to stop the vicious attacks that her Conservatives4Palin,com followers make on the other conservatives, all she would have to do is to post an article there and ask everybody to stop.  And if that didn’t work she could simply have Rebecca Mansour or her replacement to ban the offenders.  Do you honestly think that the moderators of the forum to promote Sarah Palin are going to not follow the wishes of Sarah Palin?

    And for the record,, this article was on Ann Coulter, not Sarah Palin.  YOU are the one who brought Sarah Palin into the discussion.  If you don’t want a discussion about her, don’t bring her up.

    Who pays YOU or goldenprez  to keep pumping her up?

  • RUexperienced

    Here is how Glenn Beck’s website summarizes that exchange.  They did not “insult” or “trash” Palin.  She had harsh criticism for Palin’s online followers, but not Palin herself.

    On Tuesday evening’s “The O’Reilly Factor,” Ingraham and Coulter made
    some negative statements about Palin’s presidential prospects, her
    willingness to dig deep on policy issues and her fans’ diehard
    allegiance to her. During the discussion, Ingraham explained:

    “…I like Sarah Palin, but I don’t think she seems all
    that interested in digging really, really deep on that stuff. That’s
    just my take on that.”

    Later, Coulter — elevating the temperature of the discussion – said:

    “…she’s become sort of the Obama of the Tea Party. She‘s
    just ’The One’ to a certain segment of right wingers. And the tiniest
    criticism of her — I think many of your viewers may not know this. No
    conservative on TV will criticize Palin, because they don’t want to deal
    with the hate mail…
    You know, we used to all love Sarah Palin, conservatives like me, for
    her enemies. I’m starting to dislike her because of her fans.”

  • Leroy_Whitby

    Exactly. The statement speaks for itself. Coulter is an inside the beltway, little facts or analysis, screw the uppity little people type when it comes to Presidential politics. She is opposed to the base voters of the Republican party. That was a totally content and fact starved hit. So she dislikes me and the Republican base. Great to know.

  • Leroy_Whitby

    You claim Palin controls independent supporters sites because she could send them a note. Politicians don’t get involved like that, it would be stupid, and you know it. If politicians get involved, even once, and it came out they could be fairly said to be in control of the site and be responsible for it. That’s why your smear is unfair.

    Palin has her own sites and is responsible for their content.

    Similarly, you say she “owns” remarks that she allegedly made. No she doesn’t. The person making the allegation owns them. Sarah Palin is a public figure that we see every day. She talks about these candidates on TV and on tape repeatedly, but you take the allegations and use them rather than the actual public statements. Which is slimy because you don’t present them fairly, point out their context, or when they are not reliable. You should be embarrassed of that.

    You take every stick, true or not, proven or not, likely or not. Makes you untrustworthy, unfair, and frankly, worse than that.

  • CaptainAhab

    and you are also a wordsmith.  Webster and Shakespeare would have been proud of you.

  • CaptainAhab

    Ron Paul has stated that he will not run for a third party if he doesn’t win the nomination in 2012.  In 2008, he did endorse Chuck Baldwin from the Constitution Party when he didn’t get the Republican nomination. 

    You guys who are constantly calling Ron Paul and his supporters “nuts” and “kooks” can’t have it both ways.  You minimize, distort, and ridicule the man and his principles along with his supporters throughout the primary process.  Then (as in 2008), when his supporters go to vote for a third party candidate, you whine like little school girls.  The reason McCain lost was because he was a rino.  Whether it was McCain or Obama, we WOULD still be in the same mess we are in right now.   Do you forget that just weeks prior to the 2008 election, that McCain voted right alongside Obama for the TARP bailout?