Black Box Report

Ann Coulter has new book to sell; Ann Coulter says something teh outrayyygeous to drum up publicity for said book.

If we took away women's right to vote, we'd never have to worry about another Democrat president. It's kind of a pipe dream, it's a personal fantasy of mine, but I don't think it's going to happen. And it is a good way of making the point that women are voting so stupidly, at least single women.

Speaking of single women voting stupidly...

Now, slamming Ann Coulter for saying something offensive and just...stupid is like shooting comatose fish in s very small barrel. But because she is still embraced by conservatives, her rantings are a telling insight into their mindset (if you want to call it that):

If we were to subscribe to Ms. Coulter's theory - that single women be left out of the political process - and further assume that given the leading GOP presidential candidates decision to skip Hispanic and African American forums, those Americans be left out as well, we could very well believe that conservatives want the elections decided by married white men.

Somewhere, Pat Buchanan is pumping his fist and shouting YESSS!

I tried to find some non-amoeba-level rightwing bloggers to jump on this bandwagon and come to Coulter's defense, but....pppbbbtt!!! Nada. So I had to resort to wingnut radio host Neal Boortz's website for that pre-1900 mentality:

Coulter is exactly right. Don't take her word for it, just read "Freedomnomics" by John Lott. Here we have a renowned economist going all the way back to the late 1980s to see what happens when women get the vote. His findings? In every single case, when women were given the right to vote the cost of government immediately began to rise as women, particularly single women, started voting for the candidates who would create more government spending programs designed to provide women with security. That magic word...security.

Lott found that young single women overwhelmingly vote liberal. When they marry and start a family they start voting more conservatively. That would be because their sense of security is provided by their family, and they don't want government to interfere in their accumulation of wealth. Then, if that very same woman starts to feel that her marriage is threatened ... or if she becomes divorced ... she right back there voting for liberals again. Why? Security .. this time from the government instead of her husband.

Coulter is right. Deal with it.

As Atrios says, "The stupid...it burns"

It's not just that Coulter's statement is inherantly antithetical to very premise of Democracy - she's bent out of shape because she can't force people to agree with her, we all get that. But Coulter is advocating the kind of anti-democratic sentiment that was so popular with Saddam Hussein, who made it illegal to vote for anyone but him, because that was the right way to vote. And since we can't kill people for voting for Democrats 9 yet, anyway, although I'm sure she'd love to talk to Dick Cheney about fixing that), she'll settle for taking away their right to vote.

Who says Republicans want to disenfranchise voters? Only Republicans that actually want to disenfranchise voters.