Ann Coulter: Why use logic when racism is so much easier?

You know, I realized this morning how happy people like Ann Coulter and Michele Malkin must be that someone like Sarah Palin is running for VP. I mean, what does the media love more than women that manipulate the words of feminism to justify their calculated misrepresentations of important women’s issues. And what do anti-feminist faux feminist women love more than seeing all their tall tales of “real” feminism come true? Palin is the perfect encapsulation of their anti-feminist dreams. But I digress.
I am just annoyed right now after reading this piece by Coulter on via Feministe where she blames the mortgage crisis and flailing economy on affirmative action. At a certain point, I realize that she just doesn’t read. Or at least not the same news that I am reading.

Under Clinton, the entire federal government put massive pressure on banks to grant more mortgages to the poor and minorities. Clinton’s secretary of Housing and Urban Development, Andrew Cuomo, investigated Fannie Mae for racial discrimination and proposed that 50 percent of Fannie Mae’s and Freddie Mac’s portfolio be made up of loans to low- to moderate-income borrowers by the year 2001.
Instead of looking at “outdated criteria,” such as the mortgage applicant’s credit history and ability to make a down payment, banks were encouraged to consider nontraditional measures of credit-worthiness, such as having a good jump shot or having a missing child named “Caylee.”

Because you know all those lazy poor brown people that don’t work tirelessly as the back bone of this country, the least represented in government, the least beneficiaries of tax breaks, the folks that don’t get access to the monopolized wealth of this country, clearly THEY ARE THE PROBLEM HERE. Please provide me with a form that had “jump shot” as criteria. Why is it OK for people to be this embarrassingly racist?
She concludes,

Political correctness had already ruined education, sports, science and entertainment. But it took a Democratic president with a Democratic congress for political correctness to wreck the financial industry.

People like Coulter are some of the Republican thought leaders. What this says about Republicans is obvious. What this says about Americans that support Republicans…well that is just upsetting. She is a fucking idiot. Yeah, I said it.

Join the Conversation

  • SociologicalMe

    My current greatest fear: that somehow McCain will get elected, then get sick and die, and then Palin will be president. Then she’ll fuck it up, because she’s not qualified, and people like Coulter will spin it like she fucked it up because she’s female, not because she’s unqualified. Yes, even if they’re the same people who backed Palin in the first place. Hell, especially those people- it’ll sound like “see, we gave women a fair chance, and see what they did with it?” Then we’ll have a festering shitheap of new and rejuvenated sexism to wade through before we ever, in a hundred years, get another actual qualified female candidate up to this level.

  • Little Mermaid

    Um seriously, Ann Coulter needs to be put out of her misery already…or at least take a big crap to improve her mood. Honestly, I didn’t click on the link to read her article because I’m never able to get through reading an entire article written by her. She spews such nonsensical, hate-filled psycho-babble that doesn’t articulate anything even close to a rational thought. Out of sheer curiosity once, I read her book “Godless: The Church of Liberalism.” The entire book was so mindnumblingly ridiculous and entirely unfactual that I lost IQ points from reading it!! (The first two chapters rambled on and on about toilets and humans having an innate want to get away from their body wastes, and one chapter was graciously devoted to hating on public school teachers and ranting on how we’re all highly over-paid indoctrinators of Liberalism who get paid to do nothing but sit around all day, have sex with our underage students, and get all kinds of recognition and awards that we don’t deserve.) I don’t need to read this newest article by her to know it’s racist, hate-filled, and unfounded. I’ll take your word for it!!
    Oh, and when I saw Ann Coulter on Fox News smiling and singing her praises for Sarah Palin, that’s when I KNEW Sarah Palin was dangerous and bad news!! If someone as hateful and crazy as Ann Coulter likes a candidate, then you KNOW he/she can’t be good!!

  • norbizness

    It’s pointless to try to educate those non-existent crossover Feministing/Townhall readers.

  • maggie1

    I think that a lot of feminists like to label Palin an anti-feminist simply because she doesn’t tow the far left liberal line.
    She could make history and become the first female vice pres. and from the sound of the responses Palin has gotten, it’s clear that a lot of woman/feminists are only supportive of a fellow woman/feminist so long as that woman agrees with them.
    That’s hypocritical.

  • llevinso

    Maggie, I think you need to read some of the past blogs on why Sarah Palin is in fact not a feminist. Just because she’s a woman doesn’t make her a feminist.

  • cordelia9889

    maggie1: It confuses you that we don’t support politicians who don’t agree with us? Okayyy.
    I keep hearing people say things like this: “Feminists don’t support Sarah Palin just because she doesn’t support any of the things that would make a positive difference in women’s lives! Hypocrites! Waaahhh!” What?
    To return to the actual post: If you really think that Ann Coulter is a leader in conservative though, you don’t know many actual Republicans. Most of the Republicans I know, although they’re not particularly conscious of white privilege, would recognize this as blatantly racist. Just because someone votes Republican doesn’t mean they subscribe to this shit. Ann Coulter gets attention because she’s outrageous, not because she actually represents the conservative mainstream.
    I always find myself defending conservative values on this site, when I don’t actually hold any of them myself. I just think that sometimes, here in the liberal blogosphere, we forget that there is value in examining opposing ideas rather than just vilifying them. Even if they’re wrong, there’s still something to be learned from the dialogue.


    you are only giving Coulter more publicity and attention, which is what she wants.
    she is insane and i dont think anybody takes her seriously. i’m so over her random babblings.

  • Samhita

    I would probably do that if this was someone who actually gave well thought out and informed opinions. Feministing has consistently done that as well. But she is beyond the pale, so that is exactly the treatment I give her.
    I actually do know a lot of Republicans and I don’t think they would think this essay is racist. Maybe SOME of them, but most of them. Hell no.
    I stand by my argument and only add that in the mainstream media, Coulter is considered a leader in Republican thought.

  • M0xieHart

    I have to agree with Samhita’s response to Cordelia. Most of my family is republican, and while they’re generally decent, hardworking people, they are pretty unconscious of class privilege, sexism, and racism. Of course, I don’t know every republican in the world, there may be some who acknowledge these things.
    What I don’t get is when rich people vote republican it’s considered just choosing what’s in their best interest, but when a woman votes for a liberal candidate she’s just too stupid to choose the “right” candidate.

  • cordelia9889

    I agree, Ann Coulter is not worth serious consideration, that last paragraph in my first comment is kind of a tangent.
    I guess we just know different Republicans, but the ones I know are mostly embarrassed by crazies like Ann Coulter (and Rush Limbaugh, and Sean Hannity, etc., etc.). I would add that just because the MSM talks about Coulter a lot, doesn’t mean that they’re acknowledging her as a leader in Republican thought. It just means she’s an entertaining figure, in her infuriating way, and putting her on the cover of a magazine means selling a lot of copies.
    The part of your post that I took issue with, specifically, was “What this says about Americans that support Republicans…well that is just upsetting.” It sounds as if you’re saying that all Americans who vote Republican/oppose affirmative action-type programs are doing so because they are okay with racism. I think you’re conflating not paying attention to class/race privilege (which is definitely a huge issue in a lot of conservative thought, I don’t deny that) with being actively racist (which Coulter’s article is). I know that sounds like hairsplitting, but in light of how much you can reasonably expect someone in the American mainstream to have actually considered the idea of white privilege, I don’t think it is. Bottom line is, I know a lot of Republicans who are deeply concerned with economic inequality (insert discussion of inequality of opportunity vs. inequality of outcome here, but ANYWAY) and just don’t think that affirmative action is the way to deal with it, for a variety of reasons, and it bothers me to see comments that dismiss those people’s existence.

  • Thomas

    It’s not just Coulter; this is the new Republican test-balloon for blaming Dems for the failure of laissez-faire policies at the end of eight years of unprecedented movement conservative dominance. They need somewhere to throw the blame, and blaming poor people of color has been the well they can always go to. The black defaulting homeowner will be their new welfare queen.
    It’s all bullshit. I’m one of those folks with a pretty good grounding in what’s really going on. (1) the “subprime” mess isn’t just subprime. There are problems with “Alt-A” loans, too. Affluent white folks bought at the top of a bubble with an ARM and couldn’t handle an adjustment; folks borrowed all the equity they could squeeze and are upside-down as soon as the prices fell. There are problems with commercial mortgages, too.
    (2) Sub-prime meant, by definition, that a loan was not Fannie- or Freddy- worthy, until recently when the subprime loans began to be a problem and Fannie and Freddy were ordered to take them on to help out the financial institutions who bet too heavy on that crap.
    (3) POC were more likely to be the victim of predatory lending. Fly-by-night originators pushed loans on people that they wouldn’t be able to afford long-term. Once upon a time, lenders said no to people who couldn’t pay because they stood to lose in the case of default. Securitization, which makes a package of loans that can be broken up and sold off in bits, used to be only for the “good” mortgages. The financial services industry extended that to subprime, providing the incentive to boiler-room originators to get the papers signed and sell the loan, fundamentals be damned. One guy who sold some of the ARMs said they called them “neutron mortgages, because like a neutron bomb, they go off and the people are all gone but the houses are all still standing.”
    (4) There’s a lot of bad debt, but the crisis is being magnified by the way it was sold. There are only about $6 trillion in mortgages (I know, that’s really a lot) but $62 trillion (!!!eleventyone!) in derivatives — side-bets such as “credit default swaps” on whether securities made of parts of parts of these loans. Sure, some people in Irvine, Ca. or Naples, Fla. might not make the mortgage payment, but they didn’t make anybody create a CDO from several pools of mortgage parts, then create a CDO-squared from parts of CDOs, they didn’t make anyone take out a credit default swap contract that “insured” (read bet on) those risks, and they sure didn’t make supposed-to-be-conservative investors like life insurance companies buy a piece of poorly-understood frankenpaper guaranteed by some thinly-capitalized monolines and rubber-stamped AAA-rated.
    (As an aside, derivatives. A derivative is contract that derives value from securities. Some derivatives are very complicated, pooling the effects of lots of little securities and variables. They can be highly sensitive, and they can be hard to understand. When Nick Leeson bankrupted Barings, he was trading in currency derivatives that his supervisor did not understand. When Long Term Capital imploded, one of the major issues was that they had derivatives hedged against each other so that while their bet might not be that big, the counterparty risk to their trading partners was huge — which was why the Fed made the banks cut a deal. Warren Buffet, in 2002, called them “financial weapons of mass destruction”. Just about a year before AIG nearly collapsed, the head of the London unit that did its big mortgage derivative business, AIG Financial Products, predicted that it was nearly impossible that AIG would lose even a dollar on its derivatives. There’s nothing inherently wrong with derivatives, but I keep seeing these situations where I think people modelling derivative risk are just completely smoking their own dope. You see, anyone getting an outsized reward is probably courting outsized risk, but self-stroking financial engineers looking at really complicated derivatives seem able to convince themselves that they have found a way to get something (huge, outsized returns) for nothing (no outsized risk). There are no free lunches in the market. The music always stops, and there are never enough seats.)

  • Samhita

    Cordelia–I totally hear you.


    As I see it, acknowledging the tasteless, manipulative, bigoted rhetoric of pugilists like Anne Coulter and others of her ilk (Michael Savage and Rush Limbaugh come to mind) only ensnares one into playing her crass card game – a method she’s successfully utilized for as long as I’ve been aware of her existence, ensuring that her purse remains plump.
    Her comments are absolutely no surprise to me, because they’re following her usual trend, and all I can simply do is shrug. She is Ann Coulter. We know her M.O.
    I suppose the fact that she reaches some narrow-minded minds via her conservative, unabashedly right-wing antics might be of some concern for liberals, especially; and so they feel the need to challenge each slanted point of view she expresses, no matter how outrageous or obviously manipulative they might be.
    In my personal experience, I find it most beneficial to simply ignore pugilists like Coulter, Savage, Limbaugh, O’Reilly and others, recognizing the fact that there is a bottomline to people like these. They are “entertainers” who collect large sums of money for the “sleight-of-hand” shows they put on for their loyal followers. And they can be bought and sold rather easily, in my opinion, making it even easier for me to not take them seriously.
    As far as I’m concerned, Coulter is not much more than a shock-jock – Howard Stern minus the penis and the salacity. It’s to her benefit when we acknowledge her words, giving them life and power. Instead, leave her alone to wallow in her playpen. Eventually she’ll get bored from the lack of attention, and I think her voice will suffer for it.

  • blueinthefaceangel

    I’m so sorry that I’m lazy..really?I’ also sorry that as a minority I get ‘special privleage and waste of money.It’s not that some of the minorities just don’t learn about this kinda of stuff.So the can preapre that..ughhh this women is pissing me off…let’s see her say that in a black church…
    (P.s) forgive me for any spelling mistakes….

  • lgrf4evr

    What you just said did not have an ounce of logic to it. People in this room actually got stupider after listening to your comments.
    I also don’t think that it is right to used affirmative action to get an unqalificatfy woman into office. Isn’t that why the right had also argue, hire base on qualification not affirmative action?
    Beside, I dislike how you are using gender as the issue here. It like saying that you are a racist because you don’t vote for a black candidate.
    You said that gender should not be a deciding factor in election but than used the gender card to guilt people into voting for a person they don’t agree with.
    Are you a racist by chance? You know I think that just because a woman don’t agree with a woman candidate, it doesn’t mean that she must vote for her base on affirmative action. It isn’t right.
    Men do it all the time and no one will ever criticize a man for voting his best own interest instead of calling him a sexist for not voting for a man.
    If she was a man, you will never say something like that. The only hypocrite here is you. You know just because a woman don’t tot the far right wing garbage like you doesn’t mean that they must vote for a person who is the same gender as them that do promote right wing garbage.
    If this was Hillary Clinton, I don’t think you would say something like that. Get over yourself, people will not vote for her just because you guilt them into it.
    Since we are playing that game, let play it. If you are a minority male, than you are a racist because you don’t vote for Obama.
    If you are a catholic, than you are anti-catholic because you don’t vote for Biden. If you are a white male, than you are a racist because you don’t vote for McCain.
    If you are a woman and don’t vote for Palin, than you are a racist. See everybody wins.

  • lgrf4evr

    Yes, but it also seem to be that far right wingers only support a female candidate so long as she tot their right wing views.
    It is completely hyprocritical of you to support a female if she agrees with you yet called senator clinton an evil whore.

  • WIDave

    The way I understand it, the current financial crisis was more a matter of politicians making decisions for the mortgage industry that were more politically correct than fiscally responsible. New regulations were made law during the Clinton administration that required Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to grant a larger segment of their mortgages to lower income people.
    I fully support a person to be able to buy their own home. It is a solid part of the American dream. BUT. It is irresponsible to loan a person money that will be unable to repay the loan.
    A bill was in congress in 2005 that would have put a regulator in charge of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac very similar to how regulators are in charge of the banking industry. Congress shot the bill down. That bill could have saved at least some of the pain of this current mess.
    The current chairman of the banking committee, Barney Frank, needs to be taking much more blame than he has been recieving.
    Do I see this as a race issue? No. I see it as an example of political correctness being more important than fiscal responsibility.

  • PamelaVee

    Coulter has to be a liberal plant! She makes republicans look sooooo bad.

  • stana

    Probably too late in the game for anyone to see, but I had to point this out:
    “At a certain point, I realize that she just doesn’t read. Or at least not the same news that I am reading.”
    No, she doesn’t read the same news that you do. You are on one side of the political spectrum, and she’s on the other. You BOTH get very biased versions of what’s happening, just as everyone else filters the world to fit their views.
    Sometimes when someone else seems to have “news” that is totally foreign to us, it says as much about us as it does them.
    Now I’m not saying that I agree with Coulter (I very strongly don’t) but you are making a really dangerous argument, by saying that because YOU aren’t familiar with her facts, they must be wrong.

  • ThinkingClearly

    Even a clock is right twice a day. The problem with this column is: Coulter is right. Giving BILLIONS of dollars in mortgages to people who didn’t qualify for them and could never pay them back is why the markets are collapsing. For a while it was okay because the homes could always be sold. But, when the housing market collapsed all of these horribly bad mortgages came home to roost.
    Some friends of mine in 2002 were thrilled to buy their dream home. They told me they could just barely afford the payment and were concerned when the ARM (adjustable rate mortgage) would increase their payment almost $2,000 in 2 years. I asked if they knew that their income would go up that much by then and they said, “We are hoping” but they had no real foundation for the hope. Luckily in late 2004 the housing market wasn’t super bad and they were able to sell their house and get out from under the mortgage (at a loss).
    Say what you will, these horrible mortgages that Coulter talks about are the very basis of the problem we are in. Sorry its Coulter who said it: SOMEBODY HAD TO!

  • Danyell

    I think the point you missed is that she specifically blames poor, BLACK people.
    Banks do want you to be able to pay back loans, but they prefer to have poor people struggle to make loan payments. If people only make minimum payments on loans, they end up paying more on interest in the long run and banks actually make more money. The problem is that no one, ever, in the history of America, has thought it necessary to explain credit to poor people. Which is why so many of us end up in debt. It’s constantly advertised as being free money and banks are always inventing new ways to take advantage of this ignorance (I give you “pay day cash advance loans”). The problem is when banks get too greedy and give too many loans with too high of an interest to too many people who can’t afford it, all the while denying the fore-coming recession. Only when the banks start losing money (or at least, stop making so much money) does anyone get worried. No one cares if poor people get more poor, but they’ll build an economic system off the backs of the lowest class. Maybe we should fix the foundation instead of stupidly believing that wealth ever will trickle down.
    And I feel back for the right that they have such stupid people like Ann Coulter and Bill O’Reilly supposedly representing them. It’s really not fair. Surely, they must have SOMEONE smart over there. Right?

  • noalarms

    samhita – on your points, i agree 100%. coulter is racist and despicable. what i DON’T think you should do – link to this woman. all she wants is attention. she is nobody without it, so stop giving it to her.
    i agree with kottke:

  • ThinkingClearly

    Danvell –
    We really have to get to the point where the mere mention of race makes one a racist. The facts are the facts. What Coulter said was 100% correct, sorry.
    Here is another take on the situation that basically says the exact same thing Coulter said. This column is by a very well-respected and emininet college professor and economist. He says what Coulter said… and… uh… he is African-American.
    Read it here:

  • Danyell

    So…nothing else I said warranted any reply then? Even though the bulk of my comment was not actually about race? Jeez, good thing I put so much thought into it… (though now you expect me to read the article you linked to?)
    I didn’t call anyone a racist in my first comment, actually. But the fact they no one seems to think banks have any responsibility in this at all, is rather suspect. Amazing how poor folk’s role in the economy only matters when things go to shit for rich people. Funny, even.
    And, really, she’s 100% correct? Even the fact that all Black people must be pro-ballers and don’t know where their kids are? See, it’s not simply mentioning race that makes one a racist. (See, NOW I called her a racist!) Please don’t condescend to me. I actually do know some stuff, ok?

  • Samhita

    Noalarms-Oh but us feminist bloggers have to get our kicks somehow! ;)
    Thinking clearly-Coulter is not right. Sorry, I am in agreement with Danyell. She is making overarching assumptions and actually had the audacity to talk about people’s NAMES and that they play sports!!!! and this is criteria for getting mortgages. It is stupid to even try and argue that is not racist.
    I think to get so defensive when people say something is racist is really saying something. Not totally sure what, but like Cordelia said above. There are even right-wingers that would say Coulter is off her head.

  • ThinkingClearly

    Danvell –
    My opening sentence in my last post read, “We really have to get to the point where the mere mention of race makes one a racist.”
    BUT it really should have read: “We really have to get to the point where the mere mention of race does NOT make one a racist.”
    Sorry about the typo.

  • Danyell

    I know what you meant.

  • Elsewhere

    Anytime someone blames a ***national*** crisis, one that took the participation of millions of people in order to create – on *one* specific color – white, black, Mexican, whatever – that’s racist.
    I have yet to see any loan forms that say “Must be black in order to qualify”. Therefore, I fail to see how only blacks could be the ones creating this problem.

  • Caitlin

    Are you sure you read the Ann Coulter article thoroughly? Complete with descriptions of minorities such as “having a good jump shot”? Let me know the time writing things like that does not make someone a racist.
    The article by Thomas Sowell doesn’t mention race, class or even gender, whereas Ann Coulter’s headline was “They Gave Your Mortgage To A Less Qualified Minority”. No one is arguing about whether the idea that mortgages were irresponsibly undertaken by people who couldn’t pay them is true or not. Trying to imply that the people who took out these irresponsible mortagages were all people of color is where the offense is being taken.

  • ErinKaitlyn

    Ann Coulter is the most arrogant and egocentric woman, and I am trying to be nice here. the more I watch on her the more I don’t even know how anyone can take her seriously. if you watch this shes says Canada should be happy we are allowed on the same continent… ummm there was really no other choice, it’s called geography.
    And no one is to blame for the crisis that America is in then the banks and American finance
    companies like AIG that got away with paper profits backed by phony
    “securities” called credit default swaps.

  • ErinKaitlyn

    Ann Coulter is the most arrogant and egocentric woman, and I am trying to be nice here. the more I watch on her the more I don’t even know how anyone can take her seriously. if you watch this shes says Canada should be happy we are allowed on the same continent… ummm there was really no other choice, it’s called geography.
    And no one is to blame for the crisis that America is in then the banks and American finance
    companies like AIG that got away with paper profits backed by phony
    “securities” called credit default swaps.