Coulter Rips Bush

By Howard Kurtz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, June 26, 2007; 10:40 AM

Give me a moment to catch my breath. I just heard Ann Coulter say something remarkable.

It wasn't one of her patented attacks on liberals and other heathens. It was a casually tossed-off line about the president of the United States:

"We're all just waiting for this nincompoop to be gone. I think we're all finally on the same page on that."

Did I blink and miss something? Is Bush now toast with the entire conservative movement? Unfortunately, Chris Cuomo didn't follow up during the "Good Morning America" interview. Coulter did praise Bush's handling of the war, but opined that "his domestic policy has been an embarrassment."

Still . . . nincompooop? I know the right is mighty ticked off over Bush's immigration bill--or "shamnesty," as Michelle Malkin calls it--but has he been totally written off? Isn't Coulter a pretty good leading indicator? And if that's the case, are people like Ann admitting that liberals were right about W. and she was wrong? If "we're finally all on the same page," didn't it take a helluva long time for her to get there? I sure would have liked to hear her elaborate.

All of Bush's potential replacements seem to be getting kicked around by the punditocracy these days. Let's take a look.

Is Obama running out of steam? HuffPost's Drew Westen thinks so:

"On the stump, Obama can be electrifying. And behind all that electricity is a first-rate intellect. But if you have electricity, the last thing you want to do is pull the circuit breaker and start explaining the fine points of transistors, electrons, and electrical engineering. Yet that's exactly what Obama has done in his recent debate performances. Whether the decision was his, his senior strategists', or some combination of the two, he seems to have decided to check his charisma at the door, avoid the moving imagery and oratory that electrified the electorate from the first time they saw him on the national stage, and talk about issues, positions, 'marginal tax rates' (as opposed, for example, to 'your taxes'), and the fine print of his health care plan.

"Obama has it in him, but he isn't using it. The one who is using it is John Edwards, who voters saw as the winner of the last debate, but who the East Coast media have run a concerted effort to take out of the race -- first by pretending that he wasn't in it, describing it as a two-way contest between a white woman and a black man, and failing to mention in most articles that the usual presumptive favorite, the vice-presidential nominee from the last election, was even in the race; then by amplifying a concerted GOP effort to portray him as feminine and hypocritical (as if the Kennedys couldn't talk about poverty or the minimum wage until they sold their compound on the Cape), and now describing his years studying and speaking about poverty -- not exactly an obvious issue to champion if you want to win an election -- bashing immigrants is much better for the polls, if not for the soul -- as a political ploy and perhaps a misuse of funds. . .

"Of the top contenders, the main beneficiary of Obama's turn to the cerebral thus far seems to have been the cerebral Hillary Clinton, who is picking up votes the more she shows something other than the size of her cerebrum -- the warmth and humor whose lack have been her greatest emotional deficits."

At the New Republic, Jason Zengerle unloads on Fred Thompson:

"At a basic level, he's a lazy dilettante--someone who would much rather go to London than Kansas City. Which is a perfectly understandable preference for you and me, but not for someone who wants to be president.

CONTINUED     1                 >

© 2007 The Washington Post Company