So Ann Coulter's not happy about the John Roberts nomination? i don't believe her. i hate to let the cat out of the bag, but i'm convinced her column today is all part of the game plan. It smells like something Karl Rove would have cooked up.

It's no secret that presidents throughout history have used friendly and willing columnists to their own advantage. This president has been caught doing it a couple of times, to great controversy. i read Coulter's piece and her objections seem half-hearted. Hey, i agree with her on strategy. i think Bush should have named an in-your-face conservative, and i said so a few weeks ago. But on substance, the worst she can say about Roberts is "we don't know much about" him.

This is great strategy. When people who don't follow politics that much hear Ann Coulter's name, they often think of her as a right wing extremist. She is not that. Michael Savage is a right wing extremist. Coulter is just very funny, often sarcastic, blonde and female. Therefore, the left hates her more than Savage, who's appeal is narrower and thus less dangerous from their point of view. No one has to be told that Savage is a nut. But since Ann Coulter makes sense so much of the time, demonizing her is the only weapon the left has against her.

So when the politically apathetic hear that Coulter is against Roberts, they're not going to know the specifics of her lackluster objections, they're just going to think "he must be okay." It's just my theory, and of course what do i know, but this kind of reverse psychological tactic seems like trademark Rove to me.

Link thanks to Captain Ed.

Posted by: annika at 02:10 PM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 297 words, total size 2 kb.