Ann Coulter Aggressively Takes on Democrat Response to Mark Foley

October 8th, 2006 12:04 PM

Ann Coulter was interviewed Saturday on Fox News’ “Weekend Live,” and those who actually were out and about missed the outspoken conservative speaking her mind like few in America do while cameras are rolling. The subject was Mark Foley, and the somewhat hypocritical response to this sex “scandalette.” After all, this appears to be a sex scandal without a key ingredient – sex.

Early on, Coulter stated about the Democrats, “I’ve never seen them engage in such gay-bashing.” Since folks on the left typically have short memories, Coulter believes “we need to get it in writing.” After all, “this is going to rule out gay schoolteachers. Um, and I guess we can finally get [Democrats] on board for not allowing scoutmasters to take 14-year-olds in the woods if they’re gay.”

There are some other wonderful quotes which, due to their sensitive nature, will be left to the full transcript in the “Read More” section. However, Coulter fans are encouraged to strap on their seatbelts, watch the video here (courtesy of our friend at Ms Underestimated), and enjoy the wild ride.

Wilson: Joining us with her view of the world of politics, we’re here to unleash Ann Coulter, conservative commentator and author of the book “Godless”. Thank you so much for being with us, Ann. I saw you briefly at the 10th anniversary party. You were building up a head of steam then about this Foley thing. It’s really got you irritated. What’s going on with this Mark Foley thing?

Coulter:  No, I’m just love watching the Democrats go to battle against sodomy. I’ve never seen them engage in such gay-bashing. I think we need to get it in writing, though. I gather if, if house Republicans should have been wiretapping a gay guy who was overly friendly with, with pages, this is going to rule out gay schoolteachers. Um, and I guess we can finally get them on board for not allowing scoutmasters to take 14-year-olds in the woods if they’re gay. Um, but I think we need to get it in writing right now.

Wilson:  Alright, so Ann, a lot of people look at this and say this could change the dynamic of the elections. What say you?

Coulter:  Um, not, not, no. Certainly not this one person. I don’t think the Republicans did anything wrong. You had one gay guy sending inappropriate instant messages. As far as we know now there wasn’t any inappropriate touching, and Foley adamantly denies it. Pretty minor scandal compared to the Democrat sex scandals. Oh, maybe we could have a bipartisan commission with, with Clinton heading it to investigate this. But, um, what I do think is striking about it since it’s such a scandalette that’s sweeping the nation is it shows the Democrats don’t want to talk about national security. That wasn’t going well for them. But, um, now they can engage in wild, over the top gay bashing for the next few weeks.

Wilson: Well let me ask you about that. I mean, the story has had kind of hit its crescendo. Do you think we’ve hit the peak on the Foley story? Does it then fade and we can return to talk of issues in the coming election?

Coulter:  Um, if we start talking about issues, that will not be good for the Democrats. No, I think they and the media will try to keep it focused on Foley. Um, and, you know, sex scandals are always fun. So, they always have a certain amount of time in the media. Um, but, but no, I think we probably will get back to the issues.

Wilson:  And, and what do you think is the one issue if we do get back to issues that will drive people to the polls to vote?

Coulter:  Um, terrorism. Terrorism, terrorism, terrorism. I’ve noticed this, um, since 9/11, no matter what I’m asked to speak on when I go around to give speeches, um, to various groups, um, no matter what is going on in the world, and no matter what I talk about, as soon as we go to question and answer, that’s all anyone wants to talk about. This or that aspect of the war on terrorism, every single component of which of course the Democrats oppose. Um, they do, and it can’t be said often enough, wiretapping the gay guy listening to his phone calls and IMs, doing everything they won’t allow us to do to people getting calls from al Qaeda. No, we can’t listen to terrorists the way they want us listening to the gay guy in Congress.

Wilson: You know, about that again, this this this thing, I looked back at a story I did this week in which I looked back at the scandals we’ve seen in the past, and I was struck about 19 I think it’s 83 and the previous page scandal. You had a Democrat, a guy by the name of Gerry Studds, who, uh, was censured for having sex with an underage page. You had a Republican that was censured…the name escapes me at the moment…Dan Crane, who was censured for having sex with an underage female page. And, uh, neither one of them, though, was kicked out of office and asked to resign. And, back then, I believe it was the Democrats that were in control of the House of Representatives.

Coulter:  Well, yes, yes that’s right. Though, even in that case, there was a striking difference between how Democrats respond and how Republicans respond. I mean, as has been I think well-discussed over the past week, um, Gerry Studds was defended in the Washington Post, and his hometown newspapers as being the victim of a witch-hunt. He came out and denounced anyone questioning his homosexual relationship with an underage page whom he took on a trip to Portugal. Um, when the House censured both of them, you know, Dan Crane hung his head in, in, in embarrassment. He apologized. He apologized to everyone. When he ran for reelection, he was defeated. Gerry Studds turned his back defiantly on the House. He got three standing ovations. When he ran for reelection, he was reelected over and over and over again, which is why you feel like you’ve entered this Bizarro world with the Democrats engaging in gay-bashing far beyond what, what you would ever find a Republican doing. But we don’t want them to get married, that doesn’t mean we hate them.