Wingnut on Wingnut Crime: Deace vs. Coulter


Fire up the popcorn machine, kids, it’s wingnut-on-wingnut crime time again. This time it’s right wing talk show host Steve Deace attacking Ann Coulter, even going so far as to say that any Christian who buys her books will be held accountable by God on judgment day.

The commentator that probably has the least amount of credibility in America is Ann Coulter. I think a Christian that buys another one of her books or anything else that’s attached to her is probably going to have to give an account one day on why they wasted the revenue God gave them. She has undermined almost everything Christians say they believe for the last few years, including her recent joining of the board of GOProud, which is a pro-gay Republican group. I don’t know how else to put that, I don’t say this with joy and glee, I’m not playing roll out the barrel in the back as I’m telling your audience this Michael, but you asked me a blunt question and I’ll give you a blunt answer, and that is that the list of people I know in American politics who I’ve studied or interviewed or gotten to know who I think have less credibility and less integrity than Ann Coulter, regardless of their belief system, is a real short one.

On his own show, Deace later called Coulter “the least sincere, most dishonest person in American politics I know and have ever interviewed regardless of which side of the aisle they’re on.” Which is accurate, of course, but Deace himself is certainly in the top 10.

Comments

  1. Doug Little says

    It’s almost like this Deace character has been shunned by Ann at some hotel bar somewhere. She probably laughed at him when he asked her up to his room. That’s how it reads to me anyway.

  2. MikeMa says

    I wonder f Coulter will deign to respond. She is not typically shy of critics but this may be a flea vs dog issue. Or maybe Doug Little is right and she scorned him. Love that RW divisiveness.

  3. says

    God will take you to task for buying Ann Coulter books is just the wingnut way of saying “buy my books or you’ll burn in hell!”

    Amazing. The more things change…the more they stay the same.

  4. Reginald Selkirk says

    the revenue God gave them

    The same God who said that bit about “Give unto Caesar…”? The same God who said something about “the eye of a needle”?

  5. Michael Heath says

    Reginald Selkirk:

    The same God who said that bit about “Give unto Caesar…”? The same God who said something about “the eye of a needle”?

    Re the “eye of the needle” biblical passage:
    A wingnut could make a logical argument, given their illogical beliefs ,that God hates the rich so much he gave them a bunch of money in order to guarantee they’d end-up with eternal punishment. In fact, that’d be a good argument for a televangelist predominately targeting the rich as his primary demographic marketing niche.

  6. Doug Little says

    Michael @5

    that God hates the rich so much he gave them a bunch of money

    Why doesn’t god hate me enough to give me a bunch of money?

  7. slc1 says

    I think we might be making a mistake by labeling Coulter as a wingnut. As I have stated previously on this blog, I once read a comment by a former gentleman friend of hers who claimed that Coulter actually believed about 10% of the crap that comes out of her mouth and word processor. If correct, rather then being a wingnut, a more accurate description would be attention whore, that is someone who makes outrageous comments to attract attention and make money from the sheeple.

  8. dingojack says

    Doug Little – Maybe you haven’t been act gay enough, darl!
    Could you please get those two cute cabaña boys to bring me my Fluffy Duck (with extra fluff)!
    ;) Dingo

  9. John Hinkle says

    Thou shalt not waste-eth the revenue God gaveth thee.

    I think that was one of the original 15 Commandments that was lost when Moses dropped one of the tablets.

  10. Michael Heath says

    slc1,

    I find what you distinguish effectively irrelevant.

    Whether Ann Coulter, Newt Gingrich, or other demagogues believe what they say or not doesn’t matter when it comes to results that effect all of us. If they don’t believe it, it merely reveals they have no integrity where the sheeple buy it either way. Other behavioral tendencies by these demagogues already reveal they have no integrity – so we haven’t really learned anything that would effect policy by spending too much time on discerning whether their shtick is lucrative performance art or they’re idiots and delusional enough to be true believers. In terms of how these demagogues impact public policy, whether they believe it or not also doesn’t matter. Especially since positions their target audience or even they take in the past are not predictive of ones taken in the future by those influenced by demagoguery or doing the demagoguing.

    Lastly, I hardly think the fact you heard she’s supposedly a mere performance artist from a supposed friend is a sufficient premise to use as a personal conclusion or to promote to others in public as you do here. You need far more than that to make a compelling case, in fact I would argue that equates to zero evidence.

  11. Zinc Avenger says

    @slc1:

    What’s the difference between a dangerous fool and someone who only acts like a dangerous fool?

  12. Doug Little says

    Dingo,

    Could you please get those two cute cabaña boys to bring me my Fluffy Duck

    I haven’t had a Fluffy Duck in years. Who knew they were the gateway to deity supplied wealth, quick get me a bottle of yellow advocaat stat.

  13. slc1 says

    Re Michael Heath @ #11

    I interpret the term wingnut to mean someone who is nuts. I would agree that there is little consequential difference between someone who makes outrageous comments which he/she actually believes in or does so for the sole purpose of attracting attention for pecuniary purposes and I agree that Coulter and Gingrich, who I also think believes little of the nonsense he is currently spewing, have no integrity. Thus, it would appear to me that we have little to dispute about here. Unless, of course, Heath is going to claim that lack of integrity is evidence of nuttiness. My only point here is that I don’t think that Coulter and Gingrich are nuts, unlike Santorum who is certifiable.

  14. lofgren says

    The same God who said that bit about “Give unto Caesar…”? The same God who said something about “the eye of a needle”?

    Actually, fundy Christianity has its own particular interpretation of the “eye of a needle” passage. Fundies believe that “Eye of the Needle” was a particularly narrow gate into Jerusalem, and camels laden down with trade goods would have to squeeze to fit through it. In other words, Jesus was not saying that it is impossible for a rich man to get into heaven, he was just saying the rich man would have to crouch a little. Typical of the extremely legalistic understanding of scripture from this quarter. Read more here: Eye of the Needle

  15. d cwilson says

    In fact, that’d be a good argument for a televangelist predominately targeting the rich as his primary demographic marketing niche.

    Nah, everyone knows it’s easier to scam 1,000 old ladies out of their Social Security money than to get one rich dude to open up his checkbook.

  16. matty1 says

    Thou shalt not waste-eth the revenue God gaveth thee.

    I think that was one of the original 15 Commandments that was lost when Moses dropped one of the tablets.

    *Pedant alert*

    There are supposed to be several hundred commandments, Christians just like to quote the first ten plus whichever of the others they feel like. Which can be the ‘men laying with men’ or the ‘debt forgiveness’ sections depending on your flavour of Christian. Notably they don’t tend to mention the food and ritual bits except to say that those old testament rules don’t apply now (but the ones I like do).

  17. d cwilson says

    slc1 #14:

    I think it’s a mistake to take the term “wingnut” too literally. Santorum may hold some gawdawful views on sexuality and women in general, but he’s not certifiable. Assuming that your opponents are mentality incompetent can lead to grossly underestimating them (Well, accept for Bachmann, who probably is mentally incompetent).

    IMHO, people like Coulter and Gingrich are actually worse than a true believer than Santorum. If Coulter truly only believes in 10% of what she says and writes, then she is cognizant of the fact that 90% is pure BS and just doesn’t care about what kind of damage she does to our political process. Coulter, Gingrich, and I would put Hannity in this category as well, know full well that they’re lying to people and dumbing down the electorate, but they’re fine with that so long as they get paid.

    That to me is a sign of a sociapathic mindset.

  18. peterh says

    “…is probably going to have to give an account one day…”

    Isn’t the “Just you wait” threat just a little threadbare?

  19. erichoug says

    It’s funny, I completely agree with everything he says…in his first sentence.

    Yeah! We’re finding common ground. ;]

  20. ateamtlb says

    I wouldn’t label Steve Deace as insincere. He’s completely wrong about almost everything, but I do think he really believes his stuff.

  21. Michael Heath says

    Ed writes:

    I’ve always subscribed to one simple idea: If you spend all of your time pretending to be an asshole, you are, in fact, an asshole.

    I have a slightly different take:

    If you spend all your time pretending to be a wingnut, you are effectively a wingnut. If you started out not being a wingnut but it paid well to act like one, you’ll eventually become an authentic wingnut.

    Hang around sales people enough and you’ll realize they become the talking points which puts cash in their pockets.

  22. slc1 says

    Re Ed Brayton @ #20

    I am in total agreement with our host. However, being an asshole is not necessarily the equivalent of being a nutcase. I would agree that Coulter, Gingrich, and Hannity are first class assholes. By the way, there was a comment on Mr. Brayton’s old Scienceblogs blog from someone who purports to know Hannity fairly well who said he, like Coulter, doesn’t believe most of what he spouts off.

    Re d cwilson @ #18

    I think that proof of Santorum’s insanity is his denial that he wife had an abortion, albeit a therapeutic one. This is, IMHO, delusional as I think he really believes that.

  23. says

    lofgren “Fundies believe that “Eye of the Needle” was a particularly narrow gate into Jerusalem, and camels laden down with trade goods would have to squeeze to fit through it.”
    I assume that there’s a newer version involving some of the money from the packs getting squeezed out as the camel (or “job creator”) passed through the gate, which trickled down to the Common People, because as we all know the Bible supports Supply Side Economics.

    Ed Brayton “I’ve always subscribed to one simple idea: If you spend all of your time pretending to be an asshole, you are, in fact, an asshole.”
    To paraphrase Vonnegut, if memory serves, “You are what you do”.

    slc1 “I think that proof of Santorum’s insanity is his denial that he wife had an abortion, albeit a therapeutic one. This is, IMHO, delusional as I think he really believes that.”
    1. Abortion is evil,
    2. “We” are not evil,
    3. Therefore, we did not have an abortion.

  24. d cwilson says

    I think that proof of Santorum’s insanity is his denial that he wife had an abortion, albeit a therapeutic one. This is, IMHO, delusional as I think he really believes that.

    Whereas I think he is simply lying.

  25. slc1 says

    Re d cwilson @ #26

    I don’t think so. I think that he has convinced himself in his own mind that she really didn’t have an abortion.

  26. laurentweppe says

    1. Abortion is evil,
    2. “We” are not evil,
    3. Therefore, we did not have an abortion.

    It reminds me of Pacino/Roy Cohn rant in Angels in America:
    Gays are weaklings
    I am not a weakling
    Therefore, I’m not Gay
    *
    Of course you could have many more flavor:
    Socialism is unamerican
    I am a proud and patriotic american
    Therefore I am not a socialist, and don’t you dare touch my medicare

  27. d cwilson says

    Neither of us knows what is inside his head, so it’s a moot point. Lying is the simplest explanation.

  28. says

    d cwilson “Neither of us knows what is inside his head, so it’s a moot point.”
    Pah! Vegas split the odds between “Not much” and “Acres and acres of flagrantly homoerotic imagery”. True story.

  29. Tualha says

    Doug Little @7:

    “Do not try and figure out why god does what god does; that’s impossible. Instead…only try to realize the truth.”

    “What truth?”

    “There is no god.”

Leave a Reply