Gay Patriot Header Image

Referencing Reagan, Ann Coulter’s sensible defense of GOP reluctance to raise taxes

As diligent readers of this blog know, I have changed my opinion of Ann Coulter in recent years.  I used to think that she was a right-wing bomb thrower, saying outrageous things merely to get a name for herself.  But, when I met her, I put her “outrageousness” into context.

What Ann does, I wrote last April, “is just throw the left’s broadsides on conservatives back at them, returning with a playful smile what lefties send out with a self-righteous scowl.  She mocks in good fun and to make a point.”  Read the whole post for an insight into my shifting views of this conservative diva.

In short, I began to appreciate this particular diva by putting her comments into a cultural context.  Today, Mickey Kaus also takes a broader view of this conservative, finding “More evidence for [his] contention that Ann Coulter is really quite sensible if you don’t provoke her with liberal BS.: Here is a passage from her recent column on taxes and spending:”

As Reagan explains a little farther in his autobiography: He did accept tax hikes “in return for [the Democrats’] agreement to cut spending by $280 billion,” but, Reagan continues, “the Democrats reneged on their pledge and we never got those cuts.” Maybe that’s why Republicans won’t agree to raise taxes in exchange for Democratic promises to cut spending.

For Americans who are unaware of the Democrats’ history of repeatedly reneging on their promises to cut spending in return for tax hikes, the Republicans’ opposition to tax increases does seem crazy. That’s why Republicans need to remind them. [E.A]

Read the whole thing.  H/t Instapundit.



  1. There is much I respect about Ann Coulter. I wouldn’t personally use her method, but we need people like her to expose liberals’ hypocrisy. We should be able to do that without outrageous hyperbole and rhetoric, but then people wouldn’t listen. Ann Coulter gets people’s attention by dressing her facts up. As long as she’s based in reality and facts, and uses logical reasoning, which I’ve seen no evidence to suggest she isn’t and doesn’t, then she does us conservatives a service by sticking her neck out where we may not be willing to.

    And the fact that she is reasonable and civil when not provoked with idiocy, as you attest to, further indicates that she is not the crazy, unhinged right-wing lunatic some people would make her out to be.

    Comment by Naamloos — November 26, 2011 @ 3:40 pm - November 26, 2011

  2. Some lefty nitwit will probably show up to say “But she called John Edwards a f-a-g.” As if that has squat to do with anything. The real point is that just hiking taxes on the rich will not support Obama’s level of Federal spending (24% of GDP versus a historical norm of 18%), the real tax increases would have to be a lot larger and a lot more widespread.

    A new Tax Day study showed that if Washington wanted to balance the budget using tax increases alone, rates would have to more than double across the board — including on the middle class — to keep up with federal spending.

    Why this isn’t a Republican talking point is proof that Republicans are teh stupid.

    Comment by V the K — November 26, 2011 @ 5:29 pm - November 26, 2011

  3. Some lefty nitwit will probably show up to say “But she called John Edwards a f-a-g.”

    Oh, my feelings, my delicate feelings. She’s so mean. She must want to put me in a concentration camp. This proves that electing conservatives will result in me being a second class citizen, or at the very least it will result in my feelings being hurt again. Even though electing liberals will probably cause me to lose my job and my pension, among other things. Well, I can always go on welfare. Being a poverty-stricken unemployed welfare recipient is better than having hurt feelings, after all.

    Comment by Naamloos — November 26, 2011 @ 7:06 pm - November 26, 2011

  4. Oh yeah…

    my comment #3 is about how ridiculous leftist talking points, about how conservatives hate me because I’m gay, sound to me.

    Comment by Naamloos — November 26, 2011 @ 7:08 pm - November 26, 2011

  5. The same thing happened to Bush 41. The Dems promised to hold the line on spending if he would raise taxes. As he said. ¨they lied.¨ And that is how we got Bill Clinton. Dems don´t know how to keep a promise. As for Ann, I didn´t like it when she said only Romney can beat Obama. I think Gingrich could, as well as, Herman Cain.

    Comment by Roberto — November 26, 2011 @ 9:10 pm - November 26, 2011

  6. The Dems are a whole boatload of prevaricators, so the GOP should not raise taxes at all. Cut spending instead.

    Comment by davinci — November 26, 2011 @ 11:21 pm - November 26, 2011

  7. Ann throws verbal and philosophical gauntlets down. Sometimes, you need that in order to get the rest of us discussing a topic. Personally, I don’t understand her love affair for Chris Christie…and I do not always find her methods to my taste. But that is why I love my country…she can throw her gauntlets and fight the good fight against a pie to the puss (*cough* using the old Grease reference a la the 1950s versus the current use of that last word) because honestly, I cannot (current profession.) If she is blunt, by using vernacular that causes offense, it is because she is pushing and challenging the PC world we live in now thanks to liberalism/progressivism. The first step in controlling a population is controlling their speech and thought, making those words we find icky “criminal.” More power to her.

    Comment by Cat A — November 27, 2011 @ 1:05 am - November 27, 2011

  8. The government must have revenue from taxation. I have no quarrel with that.

    The government is expanding rapidly and, as a consequence, must have more revenue from taxation. I have two basic concerns with government expansion. (1) Have we eliminated the marginal programs and wasteful spending of the pre-expansion government? (2) Is the government expansion necessary and in keeping with the growth of the economy in general?

    The Democrats do not care (or dare?) to address government growth as an issue of government expense. Therefore, they only address the funding of government growth. I can spend quite a bit using the credit lines on my credit cards. However, I have no place to go to demand that my bills be paid by increasing my income, except the mirror.

    Nancy Pelosi used the typical logic of a Democrat in her private jet deal as Speaker. She needed a jet to go from Washington to California without refueling. Bush agreed. This bigger jet had plenty of room, so why not fill the seats with friends and family? Why not stock the bar? Why not this and why not that? Pretty soon, Speaker Pelosi had true royal treatment all on the tax payer’s dime. In the final analysis, could she have had a much smaller plane that required a stop to refuel and have effectively carried out her job as Speaker? Do you think?

    Not too long ago, Obama and the Democrats promised that there would be a dollar cut for every dollar in increased spending. Their lips were moving as they said that, so we knew they were lying.

    I am all in favor of radically increasing government revenue. I want it to increase enough along with radically decreasing government spending so that we balance the budget.

    The Democrats can not cut any government spending and they never seem to be able to chip away at the “crumbling infrastructure” no matter how much stimulus money they throw around.

    Comment by Heliotrope — November 27, 2011 @ 11:24 am - November 27, 2011

  9. “Oh, my feelings, my delicate feelings. She’s so mean. She must want to put me in a concentration camp. This proves that electing conservatives will result in me being a second class citizen, or at the very least it will result in my feelings being hurt again.”

    That’s funny. Pardon me, but I may plagiarize that line sometime. It really puts some perspective on the crybabies’ complaints about Ann Coulter, and about anybody on the Right who commits the capital crime of insensitivity.

    Comment by Lori Heine — November 27, 2011 @ 6:37 pm - November 27, 2011

  10. A few years back I met a former sorority sister of hers from Cornell, a soft-spoken suburban wife who downplayed their association. But this didn’t dim my view of Coulter. At some point early on, I figure, she realized that well-bred, privileged, creature comforts wouldn’t be good enough, that a different calling was possible, or inevitable. Which led eventually to satiric punditry.

    Comment by Jeremayakovka — November 28, 2011 @ 10:56 am - November 28, 2011

  11. How many times were taxes raised under Reagan? Anyone? Anyone? And how about the tax increase on corporations in 86 that Reagan described as necessary so that everyone paid their fair share?

    Comment by Kevin — November 28, 2011 @ 8:57 pm - November 28, 2011

  12. And let’s see, Kevin, what did the liar Obama puppets like you do with that money?

    You went out and demanded chocolate-covered strawberries and top-shelf liquor for you and forty-plus of your entourage on your taxpayer-funded airliner.

    But of course, we can’t possibly have Michelle Obama delay her vacation an hour or two; we need her and her entourage to fly on separate jets too.

    Reagan made the mistake of trusting Obama Party members. We know now that you are pathological wasteful liars who want nothing more than to sit around in diapers sucking your thumb and collect a full salary for it while screaming about “fairness”.

    Do you have an answer for that, Kevin? Huh? Huh? Why does your party need to raise taxes on working people to pay for booze for multimillionaires like Pelosi and lazy perverts like yourself? Do you think that’s fair that you get paid the same amount for sitting around and crapping your pants that working people do – or that what you are paid comes out of their taxes?

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — November 29, 2011 @ 3:09 pm - November 29, 2011

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.