Christianity,  Politics

World Magazine responds to Ann Coulter’s Accusations

Last week I briefly noted an inflammatory article by Ann Coulter and made note of her failure to treat abortion and marriage as transcendent moral issues:

There were many more problems with Coulter’s article, including some matters of fact that she simply got wrong. In her article, she alleges that the participants in World Magazine’s evangelical insiders survey were hand-picked to oppose Donald Trump. It turns out that this notion is completely false. J. C. Derrick explains today at World Magazine’s website: “In fact, both the idea and the participant list were fully formed before Trump announced his candidacy on June 16.”

My hunch is that Coulter’s voice is a diminishing influence among conservatives. But for those who might want to see the rest of World’s response to Coulter’s accusations, they can do so here.


  • Andrew Alladin

    I think Coulter’s basic point can be explained as follows: Suppose two or three million New Yorkers decided to move to Georgia, Utah, or Wyoming. Would those states continue to have Republican pro-life, traditional marriage supporting elected representatives? No. The exodus of millions of liberal Democrats from New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut will drastically change the demographics of Utah, Georgia, etc. And by extension pro-lifers and pro traditional marriage Republicans and Democrats would lose or find it very difficult to win.

    Changing demographics is why Florida, Colorado, and Virginia are turning blue. It explains why no Republican can win state office in New York and California.

    The Democrats know that changing the demographics by way of millions of poor and unskilled immigrants renders the need to change their policies on abortion and gay marriage irrelevant.

    Derrick describes Coulter as an “anti-immigrant zealot.” I think that Coulter believes that immigration consisting of largely poor, unskilled, non-English speaking peoples into the US will have a domino effect on all other policies – both fiscal and cultural.

    Coulter’s basic problem is that people don’t take clowns seriously.

    • Christiane Smith

      Hi ANDREW,
      Ann Coulter is an entertainer and a provocateur who earns her bread by shocking and appealing to people’s prejudices and fears. I do disagree with your statement about ‘clowns being taken seriously’, as I believe that many of the base in the Republican Party are guided more by shock jocks than by conservative journalism. AND I think it has cost the party dearly in that now, factions have arisen that are at odds with one another within the party . . .

      Of course, most rational people do not take shock jocks for political experts, no. But if enough of the base has their heads turned in extreme directions, these ‘factions’ will in time destroy party unity or at least, seriously impair party functioning. . . the kind of impairment that led Boehner to resign as Speaker of the House (and who could blame him, seeing what he was up against).

      Ann Coulter is amusing, and a fun read. But when taken seriously, her ‘effectiveness’ as a ‘conservative’ does more harm to the party than good. Does she care? I think she cares about being ‘controversial’, as that is her meal ticket, and that brings in her book sales. But does she ‘care’ about the conservative movement as such?

      ? Seems to me that anyone caring would steer folks away from extremism and toward a more healthy and substantive party. We aren’t seeing this these days, are we.

      • Lynn Burgess

        Christine writes, “Ann Coulter is amusing, and a fun read. But when taken seriously, her ‘effectiveness’ as a ‘conservative’ does more harm to the party than good.”

        Personally, I do not find Ann amusing and I no longer read her or watcher her. I do however agree that she is doing more harm than good.

Comment here. Please use FIRST and LAST name.