The Huckster is too "liberal" for Ann Coulter

by: Daimeon

Thu Dec 20, 2007 at 23:00:00 PM EST

Ann Coulter doesn't like The Huckster.  But not for the reasons you'd think.  Okay, pretty much for the reasons you think.  He's just too liberal for her. 

According to Ann he just doesn't argue against that evil "Scientific Agenda" enough for her but just enough that us "secular liberals" can paint all evangelical Christians with the crazytown brush.

Despite the overwhelming popular demand for another column on Ron Radosh's review of Stan Evans' book, this week's column will address the urgent matter of evangelical Christians getting blamed for Mike Huckabee.

To paraphrase the Jews, this is "bad for the evangelicals."

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.

The media are transfixed by the fact that Huckabee says he doesn't believe in evolution. Neither do I, for reasons detailed in approximately one-third of my No. 1 New York Times best-selling book, Godless: The Church of Liberalism. 

Despite the shameless book plug she does make a point.  We do love pointing out just how crazy he is.  I mean, there's a reason we call him the Huckster.  Even Ron Paul is scared of him.

More Ann/Huckabee fun after the jump. 

Also we find out just how long Ann spends on denouncing the LGBT community of whom she says she has many friends. Huckabee cites scripture against us all the time but, because Huckabee doesn't completely denounce the decision in Lawrence v. Texas he's still just not extreme right-wing enough for her.

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.

In the 2003 decision Lawrence v. Texas, the Supreme Court overruled Bowers v. Hardwick, a case only 17 years old (and with a name chosen by God) -- despite the allegedly hallowed principle of "stare decisis." As explained in "Godless," stare decisis means: "What's mine is mine and what's yours is negotiable."

Justice Anthony Kennedy's majority opinion in Lawrence was so insane that the lower courts completely ignored it. Since then, courts have disregarded Lawrence in order to uphold state laws banning the sale of vibrators, restricting gays' rights to adopt, prohibiting people from having sex with their adult ex-stepchildren, and various other basic human rights specifically mentioned in our Constitution.

Of course while attempting to be snarky with the last comment she actually argues against her own position.  All I can say is wow. 

She ridiculously justifies this argument by comparing consentual sex between adults in the privacy of closed doors to "privately run meth labs," and human rights abuses by employers.  Again, wow.

Employing the ACLU's "any law I don't like is unconstitutional" test, Huckabee said he supported the court's decision because a law "that prohibited private behavior among adults" would be difficult to enforce. Next he'll be telling us which of the Ten Commandments he considers "nonstarters."

How about adults who privately operate meth labs? How about a private contract between an employer and employee for a salary less than the minimum wage? 

Yes, to Ann Coulter, Mike Huckabee is too liberal, yet just conservative enough that it makes him look like a fool.  That reminds me of a song where the lyrics go, "The biggest fool to ever hit the big time, and all [she] had to do was act naturally."