The Voice Of One Crying Out In Suburbia

Coulter weighs in on Huckabee

Ann Coulter used to be somewhat amusing, but like Hannity and O'Reilly she has become such a caricature that she no longer speaks with any semblance of authority or accuracy. Coulter, Limbaugh, O'Reilly, Hannity, all are primarily entertainers. As long as they recognize that, as Limbaugh always has, they are fine. Where they get in trouble is when they start to forget their role and take themselves too seriously. Coulter is mostly given notice because she is intentionally bombastic and abrasive, and just as much because she is modestly attractive. Her rant in Human Events against Mike Huckabee is both rude and ignorant.

Coulter starts off with this doozie and it goes downhill from there:

As far as I can tell, it's mostly secular liberals swooning over Huckabee. Liberals adore Huckabee because he fits their image of what an evangelical should be: stupid and easily led.

I know quite a few people who either actively support or are seriously considering Huckabee, not a one them is a "secular liberal". I would imagine that one would be hard pressed for Ms. Coulter to drop me into the "secular liberal" category as well, especially given Ms. Coulter's juvenile religious convictions (see for example her summary of her Christian beliefs in a Townhall Column: People are sinful and need to be redeemed, and this is your lucky day because I'm here to redeem you even though you don't deserve it, and I have to get the crap kicked out of me to do it. Who needs Calvin and Luther when you have a theologian like that!). If calling a candidate "stupid" and questioning his ability to read is the best argument that Coulter can come up with, it certainly speaks volumes more about her than Huckabee. Then there was this gem:

Asked on CNN's "Larry King Live" Monday night about his beliefs on evolution, Huckabee rushed to assure King that he has no interest in altering textbooks that foist this fraud on innocent schoolchildren. I don't understand that. Does Huckabee believe Darwinism is a hoax or not? If he knows it's a fraud, then why does he want it taught to schoolchildren? What other discredited mystery religions -- as mathematician David Berlinski calls Darwinism -- does Huckabee want to teach children? Sorcery? Phrenology? Alchemy?

So what exactly did Huckabee say on Larry King Live? An outright renouncement of creationism? A Richard Dawkins-esque defense of evolution? Not quite. This is from the transcript of the show:

KING: You've said that you do not believe in evolution. That being a given, how would you deal with the teaching of it in the classroom?

HUCKABEE: The same way I did as a parent, the same way I did as a governor. I don't get into that. I'm not a science teacher. I don't write the curriculum for the science books.My kids, Larry, went to the public schools of Arkansas. I was the first governor in 50 years whose kids had all of their first through 12th grade education in the Arkansas public schools.So, you know, when people say oh, what is he going to do to the textbooks -- well, if I was going to do it, I would have done it when I was governor. Presidents have nothing to do with the curriculum of education.

That was the basis for claiming that Huckabee abandoned creationism on Larry King Live?

Are there any candidates who are proposing teaching creationism in public school textbooks? Is that even a topic of discussion for Presidential candidates? Next we have this inane comment:

When not evolving his position on Darwinism, Huckabee insults gays by pointlessly citing the Bible's rather pointed remarks about sodomy -- fitting the MSM's image of evangelicals sitting around all day denouncing gays. (Which is just so unfair. I'm usually done denouncing gays by 10:30 a.m., 11 tops.) And yet, Huckabee has said he agrees with the Supreme Court's lunatic opinion that sodomy is a constitutional right.

So let me get this straight. Coulter unequivocally claims that Huckabee says that sodomy is a Constitutional right because he said that Lawrence v. Texas was ""probably was appropriate." From that Coulter suggests that Huckabee is "pro-sodomy" and a friend of gay marriage. That makes as much sense as saying that Coulter's penchant for wearing tiny dresses and stiletto heels means she is in favor of legalizing prostitution. (Was that a cheap shot? Yep, but no less so that Coulter's entire editorial)

Is it really the top priority of the United States to enforce sodomy laws? Is doing so a sure path to legalizing gay marriage? Hardly. I think that Lawrence v. Texas was poorly decided, but it is hardly a make or break issue and not frothing at the mouth about it is certainly not tacit approval of gay marriage. Huckabee is a strong proponent of traditional marriage, and his marriage position page on the web backs this up:

- I support and have consistently supported passage of a federal constitutional amendment that defines marriage as a union between one man and one woman.
- As Governor of Arkansas, I led the successful effort to pass a similar state constitutional amendment in 2002.
- As Governor of Arkansas, I led the successful effort to make our state only the third to adopt "covenant" marriage.
- Our true strength comes from our families.

It may bear noting that Mike and Janet Huckabee got married in 1974 and have been married for the last 33 years. Coulter has been engaged several times but never married, which hardly makes her a authority on marriage. Again, a cheap shot but I am trying to stay in the spirit that Coulter enjoys.

She ends her hit piece with this:

I guess Huckabee is one of those pro-sodomy, pro-gay marriage, pro-evolution evangelical Christians.

Perhaps the most banal argument is to call Republicans "liberal" when they clearly are not. It lessens the real impact of what being liberal means when it becomes a playground insult in the hands of Coulter. Ann should stick to attacking liberals on Fox News and leave serious discussions to others.