On Coulter… and Bill Schneider

Is she Bill Schneider’s Clone? Or is he now aping her?

March 10, 2008 – Geneva (apj.us) – I have written in my previous reviews of Ann Coulter's opinion pieces in Human Events that she seems to be going through a waterless period. Her writing is just not “up to snuff” if you consider false statements, failure to fact-check, out-and-out lies, and flirtatious prevarication her gold standard.

You’d think she was CNN Bill Schneider’s clone.

This week, there is no sign of her recovery.

First Coulter’s column was late to the Web, as it has been for the past three weeks.

Next, she reaches out to Hillary Clinton – urging her to divorce Bill Clinton in a trying-to-be-humorous (-and-failing) piece she (hysterically) titles “Stand by Some Other Man.”

Ms. Coulter makes no mention that the mainstream media – which she calls the “MSM” – has been deceitful to its viewers and readers for several weeks claiming that Barack Obama has had some deluge of victories that put Senator Clinton all but out of the running.

Any idiot – even Wolf Blitzer – should have seen that Mrs. Clinton was in fact way ahead, if Florida and Michigan votes were counted – or not – and they will be. And that's not to mention the truth: Barack Obama’s primary wins were largely in inconsequential states, or worse, caucuses – which mean about, well nothing.

I was surprised Coulter missed this – but then again why she should care what’s going on in the Democratic contest?

Ms. Coulter and I do share dismay over the sorry state of mainstream reportage, although for different reasons: she because the networks do not seem to agree with her that the only decent presidential candidate must carry a Bible at all times; that human beings were made – just as they are – by God in a split second; and that teaching anything but “creationism” in science class is a mortal sin.

Me? I’m tired of the MSM because I can’t stand constant misrepresentation of reality, as is most clearly demonstrated by the dense CNN phrase "The best political team on television," which Wolf Blitzer repeats like a demonic bearded toucan every ten minutes or so.

There is nothing “best” about any of the MSM political news teams, which are packed with silly pouting newsmodels, middle-age right-wing society hausfraus like stealth Neocon Gloria Borger, or aging frat-boys such as basset-hound lookalike Brit Hume on FOX.

Coulter had one good line this week:

The percentage of registered voters who would rather disembowel themselves with a wooden spoon than vote for Hillary has just slipped below the magical 50 percent mark.

One can only laugh at Ms. Coulter visualizing this disembowelment. And by whom – Dick Cheney?

More ludicrous is her usual list of “liberal lies” – she tells us:

Liberals believe, often accurately, that if they say the same thing over and over again 1 billion times, people will believe it: "Bush lied, kids died," "We've lost in Iraq," "Reagan is stupid," "Bush is stupid," "Republicans are stupid," "Global warming is destroying the planet," "Gloria Steinem is good-looking" and — their most provably false assertion — "Bill Clinton is the most talented politician of his generation."

Sad, truly, because every one of these “inaccuracies” is in point of fact true!

I was most surprised that she used Gloria Steinem in her list as I always believed Ms. Steinem was her exemplar.

To make a boring topic interesting and shorter, Coulter spends her entire column proving she might like to take a Vietnamese spin in Bill Clinton’s chair, insulting his political acumen and everything else about him to not much avail. You know what that means?

Coulter thinks she is amusing because she now claims to support Hillary Clinton for president. Perhaps Ann is looking for a new unimportant job – with The Onion

Coulter is usually about as accurate as wacky septuagenarian Bill Schneider, CNN’s very “senior” political analyst, who for some reason is treated like the old uncle the family is sure to include in get-togethers even though they can’t stand him.

This got me thinking that perhaps there is a genetic link between Coulter and Schneider.

Every time Schneider appears on the screen I cringe. I have the same reaction whenever I am subject to a TV appearance by Coulter – although lately she only appears at home on her CD player.

This year, Schneider – the Larry King of men’s couture – is having “fun” wearing stupid hats. He wore a fur hat which got him in trouble with the PETA people. He wore a cowboy hat at the Texas primary coverage and looked like a geriatric Elmer Fudd.

Bill will be 75 in July, and I wish him the best birthday, best retirement, and good riddance. I can’t think of anyone who has done more damage to the average American’s understanding of the politics that influence us and the policies that control us.

By the way, Schneider is listed as a Fellow at the American Enterprises Institute (can you say "Neocon?") in Wikipedia. AEI itself does not list Schneider as a fellow or staffer, or anything. Did they kick him out? Was he ever in?

Bill, if you are or were an AEI big shot, you really should resign as a “journalist.” If you were not – then please, retire anyway! Blitzer can make a big enough ass of himself without you.

Ann Coulter would love to be a “fellow” of anything, but Schneider, who also recently called consumerist icon Ralph Nader “something of a public nuisance” and said that Clinton’s victories in Texas and Ohio did not blunt Barack Obama’s momentum, certainly sounds and acts like an AEI cheerleader and a possible sub rosa supporter of Coulter and her imitators.

If you really want to see Schneider “in the flesh,” look for an out-take of him caught on tape – snarling like a psychotic curmudgeon and then morphing into the kindly old guy when he realizes he is on camera – and still alive. It funny how affable looking old guys like Schneider can be little pricks.

Recent idiot comments from Schneider include, “Well it shows that Black voters respond to other things besides race.” He also recently called disgraced Senator Joe Lieberman (former Democrat turned neocon) a “Democrat.”

Here are more examples of the horror of Alzheimer’s and maybe a touch of “innate racism” from Schneider:

SCHNEIDER: “Well, it looks like the end game, but it might not be. If both states vote for Barack Obama, he's probably the nominee, because Hillary Clinton's husband said he can't see how she goes on to the nomination.”

The truth is, of course, that Bill Clinton made that remark to stir Hillary Clinton’s supporters to action – and the truth is that even if she had lost Texas and Ohio she would still be strong at the convention.

SCHNEIDER: “Then it will be the delegate counts, which is slow and agonizing. The super delegates play a role. Can Hillary Clinton amass enough delegates to claim a majority before the convention? If it doesn't look like she can, then you're going to see some Democrats begin to l urge her to step aside. Who can do that? Her husband, of course, is the one who may play a key role here.”

Here again Schneider just follows the company line. The rules of the Democratic Party do not require “amassing” a majority of delegates before the convention commences. If any Democrats “urged her step aside” they would be Democrats in Barack Obama’s corner.

SCHNEIDER: Well, it certainly will convince a lot of conservatives that maybe McCain is one of us. Anyone attacked by "The New York Times," conservatives believe, must be a conservative.

Here Schneider admits he’s at least a conservative “McCain is one of us” – and perhaps a Neoconservative.

SCHNEIDER: Well, what's so bad about that is it looks like an inside deal. It looks like the people's voice doesn't matter in choosing the ultimate nominee.

Schneider should know that primaries are not held to give the people the choice for nominee. They are held to eliminate the obvious losers and to test the strength of the candidates on the national stage. Superdelegates are not in place to join up or not with one campaign or another although they sometimes do to push the momentum – but they are no more wedded to the candidates than the “elected” delegates – especially after the first convention ballot. Superdelegates' main purpose is to make sure that “the people” don’t make a mistake – a mistake easy to make in a very complex political atmosphere. For instance, Senator Obama – beloved among the youth and activists who also tend to be young – may win caucuses because caucuses are a creature of the young activist. But Senator Obama may not do well in the powerful states with the most electoral votes. This seems to be the case today.

So, once again, Schneider is misrepresenting the facts. Yes, Mr. Schneider – in a way it is an inside deal. It’s supposed to be. Using the term "inside deal," though, is very misleading as it is a negative term. The fact is that having party leaders who have spent decades in the political arena on hand to check the over-zealousness of younger party loyalists is a terrific idea. Just ask Bill – he was old enough to support Adlai Stevenson. And look what happened! Schneider then reiterates his error again:

SCHNEIDER: I do not agree. I think the superdelegates, I think we have since 1968 turned over the decision of whom to nominate to the people.

Oh brother. And here are what I consider Schneider’s quasi-racist remarks – some of them truly racist:

SCHNEIDER: Well the white vote of course is closely split over all, men for Obama, women for Clinton. Remember this is Texas. White men in Texas are voting for Barack Obama, African American … certainly seem to have changed. They're Democrats of course, keep that in mind. On the Latino side, there really isn't identity politics in play. Neither candidate is a Latino, but Latinos have a long standing in Texas, particularly have long standing ties with Hillary Clinton.

Gee Bill, the last time I checked, people from Latin America were in full or in part white. Has something changed? To be fair, however, almost all the so-called political experts make this tragic mistake – which tends to hustle racism. In fact, is it not true that white men vote for Obama, nor that black Americans vote for Obama. Many do, some don’t. If Schneider wants to claim that the Latin-American vote has nothing to do with race, then why has he not told us how crippled people vote, or the blind, people with dogs, people with herpes, etc.

SCHNEIDER: “Clinton delivers. Obama inspires.”

I tossed this one in because Schneider says it so often you have to have an airsickness bag handy.

SCHNEIDER: Identity politics has a lot to do with how Democrats are lining up in the Texas standoff. White men for Obama, white women for Clinton, African Americans six to one for Obama, Latinos, nearly two to one for Clinton who claims to identify with Latino voters' needs and aspirations. She's even got a new Spanish language theme song.

Last is this exchange between isolationist twit Lou Dobbs, who is pushing his lousy book, and Schneider. Laugh your head off:

DOBBS: I'm just curious and those white folks who are voting for Obama, what are they?
SCHNEIDER: Some of them are men. A lot of them are men who may not want to vote for a woman. That could be prejudice. A lot of people think it is. A lot of them simply think a man can do the job better. That of course would be a prejudicial view.
DOBBS: That would be, but why wouldn't they just be voting for a person they think who happens in this instance to be black, is just a pretty good fellow.
SCHNEIDER: Well certainly a lot of them are. That's the amazing thing. These are white voters in Texas who are not voting identity politics. They're voting for an African-American man who inspires them. I saw that happening when I was in Austin last week.
DOBBS: Whoa, whoa, whoa, we don't want to get on that — we don't want to get on "Saturday Night Live" here.
DOBBS: Thanks, Bill Schneider. Appreciate it.

Oh, I forgot one more shining Schneider moment: how about this exchange between the not-getting-any-younger old fart and and Kitty Pilgrim?

SCHNEIDER: Well, Kitty, here in Texas they have a unique system for picking delegates. I call it the Tex-Mex plan. [Bill should have been wearing a sombrero.]
SCHNEIDER (voice-over): Tex-Mex restaurants have these things call combination plates, where you get a little bit of this and a little of that. Same way Democrats pick delegates in Texas. Hillary Clinton is expected to do well in low turnout Latino districts. Those districts elect fewer delegates than high turnout African-American districts, where Barack Obama is likely to be strong. But the primary is only the first step.

Ah. I see. Under Schneider’s Tcx-Mex analogy, only Texans pick delegates with a bit of this or that!

Oh, and I forgot – those darn Latinos – they never turn out to vote, do they Bill?

I rest my case. By the way, I am blonde with blue eyes, spent much of my life in Latin America, and have some black genes.

I think I’ll vote for Nader.

Naw, I can’t.

I forgot – he’s “something of a public nuisance.”

Jeff Koopersmith is a political consultant, opinion research authority, policy analyst, and self-described "renegade lobbyist." He lives in Philadelphia, Washington and Geneva.

Leave a Reply

Translate »
%d bloggers like this: