The J Stands for Jackass
Ann Coulter

October 14, 2005

In a world full of wonders there are a myriad of things to loathe, and in my time, I've loathed more than a few of them. Ted Kennedy, activist judges, Islamic fundamentalists, calories, and of course, President erect, Bill 'hot pants' Clinton. But all these targets seem to pale when I contemplate the pasty-faced doughboy known as Michael J. Gaynor. Oh my god, look at that mug - does that ghastly pink blob not have 'kick me' written all over it?

And kick I shall. Gaynor, by way of background, is a 'columnist' for the third-rate conservative publication MichNews, a repository of lockstep political posturing.  And he says he's a lawyer as well! In his bio, we learn that 'he graduated in the top 10% of his class at St. John's University of Law'. Big woof. Not exactly the University of Michigan, is it Mikey?

Okay, okay, not to be elitist - nothing wrong with St. John's if you aspire to head up a tiny law firm, as Mikey does. But he also pretends to be a writer, a man with serious ideas. Someone whose opinion counts. Don't make me loose my lunch (egg salad on saltine, and three grapes). And as of late, he's jumped onto the 'bash Ann Coulter bandwagon'.

The bandwagon is weighted down with the presidential bootlickers who refuse to cry wolf no matter how many times George Bush betrays core conservative beliefs, as made so evident by his picks for the Supreme Court. It seems that I now get to be the public face of ridicule for all these peons because I have the guts to stand up and say 'What the heck happened to the emperor's pants?' (A question we didn't even need to ask during the Clinton years.)

Well, bring it on - I get paid to be controversial. What really grills my cheese about Gaynor is the fact that he has taken to printing my columns in their entirety, interjecting his snark between paragraphs. For a 'lawyer' who claims to have litigation work in copyright infringement, this strikes me as more than a little disingenuous. See you in court, Mikey. With any luck you'll be defending your own dumb ass.

But first, let's turn it around. Since most of the words are mine, I'm reprinting all of Mikey's latest column, 'HARRIET MIERS TO THE SUPREME COURT, ANN COULTER TO JAPAN'. (Oh my, what a clever title - what's the matter Mikey - CAP LOCK GET STUCK?). For easier reading, my words appear in green, Mikey's in red, and my comments in black. Roll it.

Physically fit (that's right, punk) Ann Coulter's follow-up piece on the Miers nomination--"Does This Law Degree Make My Resume Look Fat?--demonstrates that smart (jealous?), slender (really, really jealous) Ann should not be on the United States Supreme Court (kiss my ass), but fails to show that Harriet Miers should not serve there.


Last week Ann's irritating elitism took flight (and first class, too, not coach like you). Ann wrote that "[H]arriet Miers went to Southern Methodist University Law School, which is not ranked at all by the serious law school reports" (that's right, dork - at least your school was number 65, woof woof) and described the job of Supreme Court justice as "a mind-numbingly tedious job suitable only for super-nerds trained in legal reasoning like John Roberts" (I guess you would qualify for the nerd part!).


It seems fair to say that elitism and jealousy motivate Ann's opposition to Ms. Miers, as I noted in ANN COULTER: MEOW!. (another rip-off by Mister Copyright Infringer - thanks for the link!)

Ann wrote in her first article on the Miers nomination, with reference to Supreme Court justiceships: "[S]ome jobs are so dirty, you can only send in someone who has the finely honed hatred of liberals acquired at elite universities to do them." (What is this geeky thing he does with putting the first letter in brackets? Something they taught him at St. John's to look lawyerly?)


Ann's years at Cornell and Michigan apparently were psychologically damaging for her. (Apparently your years at Beaver Community College and St. John's were mentally damaging to you, bozo!)


Ann initially did not oppose Ms. Miers on sexist grounds. Some did. (Name names, lawyer boy!) But Ann is sooo opposed to Ms. Miers' nomination that she proceeded to bash the First Lady for noting sexist opposition (kissy kiss kiss, they'll still never notice you)  and yearned for "the good old days":

"A Supreme Court nomination may not have been the ideal time for Laura Bush to start acting like 'Buy One, Get One Free' Hillary Clinton. At least President Clinton only allowed his wife to choose the attorney general. (Remember the good old days when first ladies only got to pick the poet laureate and the White House china pattern?)


Those were the good old days. Ah, Bill Clinton - whoever thought I'd end up missing you? Little George has shown me the way.

"Between cooking segments on the 'Today' show this week, Laura rolled out the straw-man sorry, "straw-person" argument that the criticism of Miers was rooted in 'sexism' (which is such a chick thing to say).

"I'm a gyno-American
], and I strenuously object.

"The only sexism involved in the Miers nomination is the administration's claim that once they decided they wanted a woman, Miers was the best they could do. Let me just say, if the top male lawyer in the country is John Roberts and the top female lawyer is Harriet Miers, we may as well stop allowing girls to go to law school."


Four paragraphs! Four paragraphs in a row of mine this loser uses. Four very funny, cleverly worded, slightly subversive but imbued with a truth that cannot be denied paragraphs. Mikey, however, not only has been unable to develop a sense of irony, he can't even string together a handful of sentences.


Alas, Ann went to a top-tier law school (even better than St. John's!) and clerked for a federal appellate judge (wow, there is so much jealousy here that I guess I should have put Mikey's comments in green!), but was not one of President Bush's choices for the United States Supreme Court. (And you know that how, toad boy? Wasn't it reported that most of the candidates asked for their names to be removed from consideration? Learn to do your research, lizard boy.)


Now comes the part where Mikey lists all of Dame Harriet's accomplishments. Let me summarize - she's the bomb!


Ann omitted nearly all of that information and instead meanly (aww, did I hit a nerve?) mocked Ms. Miers' impressive accomplishments:

"Ah, but perhaps you were unaware of Miers' many other accomplishments. Apparently she was THE FIRST WOMAN in Dallas to have a swimming pool in her back yard! And she was THE FIRST WOMAN with a safety deposit box at the Dallas National Bank! And she was THE FIRST WOMAN to wear pants at her law firm! It's simply amazing! And did you know she did all this while being a woman?"


Come on - that's funny stuff!


Then Ann made the mind-boggling argument that the Miers' nomination is an act of condescension toward women! (I might note, in passing, that some minds are easier to boggle than others, although there is a distinct possibility that parrot boy doesn't even have enough gray matter to be boggled.).

"I don't know when Republicans became the party that condescends to women, but I am not at all happy about this development. This isn't the year 1880."

You're right about it not being 1880, Ann! (Well now that's just a brilliant observation, isn't it? Think doofus boy is just being ironic? Ha! He doesn't even know the meaning of the word! Read on...)


And you are right that "in 1880, Miers would not have been the 'most qualified' of all women lawyers in the U.S., of which there were 75." Miers not having been born until the middle of the twentieth century. (Oh my god! Who else filled out Brainiac's graduating class - the Wu Tang Clan?)


Let me just summarize the next few paragraphs before you go to sleep. Blah blah blah blah blah blah blah. (I have a limit on the number of witticisms I like to use in a given day, and I've still got Hannity & Colmes to do tonight.)


My, my.  The Coulter Supreme Court policy... (Jeez, he's still droning on. Time for more summary.)


Blah blah blah blah blah blah blah.


Ann added: "Today, women make up about 45 percent of the students at the nation's top law schools."


True. But how does that relate to Ms. Miers' law school years, more than three decades ago?  (Gawd! He copied all these words from me and has apparently learned nothing.) Time goes forward, not backward. (Mikey obviously minored in physics.)


Having done her best to denigrate Ms. Miers' accomplishments, Ann tried to defend herself and others against "elitism" charges and demanded "merit" appointments.


Now Einstein begins his defense of quota appointments... at least that's what I think he did next. I accidentally on purpose spilled half of a mocha frappuccino on his column (harder than it sounds, since it was on-line, but well worth the effort), flicked on CNN for the headlines, smoked a couple of Gauloises Blondes (the favorite of elitists everywhere), and when I returned, he was still talking.

(The blot stops here. A worthy slogan for Gaynor, ne pensez-vous pas?) ...that shouts out 'Supreme Court material'! That is, unless you think any female who manages to pass the bar exam has achieved a feat of unparalleled brilliance for her gender."

Having disqualified all SMU Law grads from Supreme Court service (absolutely), Ann blithely disparaged the Texas Bar Association as "a dumping ground for losers."  Just how broad is that brush you use to paint, Ann? (Broad enough to paint a target on your ass, wonder boy!)

Ann, who has never been a judge, wisely disassociated herself from the idea that prior judicial service should be required of Supreme Court nominees. (You know what - I think this guy is in love with me. In his own weird way. I mean, he just called me wise, he talked about all of my accomplishments, he said I was mind-boggling... I think he called me pretty - let me go back and double check.)


No he did not! And he used mind-boggling in a negative context. Screw you, buddy! I'm going to summarize all the way to the end.


Blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah.

Judgmental Ann's last whack: 


 "The problem with Miers is something entirely different and entirely within the meaning of 'advice and consent': Miers is no more qualified to sit on the Supreme Court than I am to be a sumo wrestler. (Hee, hee, hee) The hearings aren't going to change that; they will just make it more obvious.

"I genuinely feel sorry for Miers. I'm sure she's a lovely woman, brighter than average, and well-qualified for many important jobs.
(Like presidential babysitter.) Just not the job Bush has nominated her for. The terrible thing Bush has done to Miers is to force people who care about the court to say that."

magine how Ann would be acting if she did not "genuinely feel sorry for" Ms. Miers! (Yeah, I'd probably do a hatchet job similar to the scalping I'm giving you, toad boy!)


Fair-minded Americans will keep an open mind and decide for themselves. But thank you, Ann, (you're welcome, dork face) for setting the bar for Ms. Miers so low. (And it is low indeed) After those hearings, perhaps you'll decide to fatten up yourself and your own resume and take up sumo!

Well, there you go. Apparently St. John Wart's School for Legal Dunderheads does not teach the fine art of synopsis. Or linear thinking. Or the common sense needed to avoid a copyright lawsuit. Heaven help us if Bush has the opportunity to make another pick for the Supreme Court. Given the law of diminishing returns, we might just end up with Pillsbury Doughboy Gaynor.

2005, M Hoback