Anne thrax needs an asslift.

[Matthew X]

Is Human Uzi Ann Coulter 38 or 40 years old? And when she insists that 
she's the former, is she telling a fib?

The right-wing media scourge – who has been getting plenty of ink for her 
best-selling book, "Slander: Liberal Lies About the American Right" – 
frequently scorches hapless reporters who dare write that she's no longer 
in her thirties. Newsday's Aileen Jacobson – who was planning to rely on 
numerous published accounts, including People magazine's, that Coulter is 
40 – let her subject argue her into using the younger age in a recent 
profile. "Media accounts that she's 40 are wrong, she maintains," Jacobson 
wrote. But yesterday Jacobson told us: "I do believe that she is 40."

London Telegraph writer Toby Harnden, meanwhile, wrote in his July 19 
piece: "An air of mystery surrounds Coulter's age. She says she is 38 but 
her publicist puts her at 40. After the interview, she sends me an e-mail: 
'I think you should go with one of the incorrect younger ages.' "


Ann Coulter: 38 and holding firm? (Dayna Smith - The Washington Post/File 
Photo)

Our own investigation revealed that:

* Coulter's Connecticut driver's license lists her birth as December 1961.

* Her D.C. driver's license, acquired many years later, says she was born 
in December 1963.

* The birth date on file at the New Canaan, Conn., voter registration 
office is Dec. 8, 1961.

In an effort to clear up all this confusion, a member of The Post's crack 
research team phoned the New Canaan registrar of voters, who chuckled, 
checked his records and reported that Coulter registered to vote in 1980, 
when presumably she was the legal minimum voting age of 18. That would make 
her 40 today.

But when we reached Coulter, she predictably stuck to her guns. "It's like 
the difference in being thrown off the 13th floor or the roof," she 
e-mailed us. "So the upside is, I'm two years younger than at least some 
newspapers have said I am, but the downside is, I'm still 38. Yikes!"
My only regret with Osama bin Laden is that he did not manage to kill every 
member of the Wall Street Journal editorial staff."

"In this recurring nightmare of a presidency, we have a national debate 
about [George W. Bush's stolen presidency].... Otherwise there would be 
debates only about whether to impeach or assassinate.
MORE ABOUT...
Eric Alterman
Media Analysis
"We need to execute people like Ann Coulter in order to physically 
intimidate conservatives, by making them realize that they can be killed 
too. Otherwise they will turn out to be outright traitors."

First things first: Mr. Ashcroft, if you're there, I do not mean any of the 
statements above to be taken literally. I do not mean them at all. None of 
them. OK? What I do mean is to point out the incredible hypocrisy of those 
on the right, the center and the "liberal media" who defend the lunatic 
ravings of Ann Coulter, whether because she is "kidding" or because "the 
left does the same thing." (For those who have been lucky enough to have 
missed the Coultergeist of the past few months, the author of the summer's 
number-one bestselling nonfiction book in America has--in language 
identical to that above--expressed her regret that Timothy McVeigh did not 
blow up the New York Times building, mused aloud whether Bill Clinton 
should have been impeached or murdered, and called for the execution of 
John Walker Lindh in order to intimidate liberals.)

It's degrading to have to write about Coulter again. As a pundit, she is 
about on a par with Charles Manson, better suited to a lifelong stay in the 
Connecticut Home for the Criminally Insane than for the host's seat on 
Crossfire. Her books are filled with lies, slander and phony footnotes that 
are themselves lies and slanders. Her very existence as a public figure is 
an insult to our collective intelligence. I should really be writing about 
the campaign by neocon chickenhawks to intimidate Howell Raines and the New 
York Times on Iraq. But fortunately, John Judis and Nick Confessore have 
taken responsibility for that, leaving me to the less ominous but more 
baffling phenomenon of the bestselling Barbie-doll terrorist-apologist, who 
continues to be celebrated by the very media she terms "retarded" and 
guilty of "mass murder" while calling for their mass extinction by the 
likes of her ideological comrade Timothy McVeigh.

Make no mistake. Coulter may routinely call for the murder of liberals, of 
Arabs, of journalists, of the President, among many others. She may compare 
adorable Katie Couric to Eva Braun and Joseph Goebbels and joke about 
blowing up the Times building. But instead of ignoring, laughing at or, 
perhaps most usefully, sedating her, we find Coulter's blond locks and bony 
ass celebrated by talk-show bookers and gossip columnists--even a genuine 
book reviewer--from coast to proverbial coast.

Do I exaggerate? While promoting her hysterical screed against 
"liberals"--a category so large she occasionally includes, I kid you not, 
Andrew Sullivan--this malevolent Twiggy with Tourette's was booked on 
Today, Crossfire (as guest and guest host), Hardball, The Big Story With 
John Gibson and countless other cable and radio programs. She was lovingly 
profiled in Newsday, the New York Observer and the New York Times Sunday 
Style section. She was the Boston Globe's honored guest at the White House 
correspondents dinner. Her incitements to murder and terrorism have been 
cheered and defended in the Wall Street Journal and National Review Online. 
(The latter did so, moreover, despite her having termed its editors "girly 
boys" and behaving, in the words of the website's editor, Jonah Goldberg, 
"with a total lack of professionalism, friendship, and loyalty.") And her 
publisher, Crown, says it has no plans to correct her lies in future 
editions. Why should they care? Is anyone holding them accountable?
The slanderous nonsense she puts between hard covers, moreover, is selling 
not only to the caveman crowd, it's also receiving praise in such 
respectable outlets as the liberal LA Times Book Review and being quoted as 
constitutional gospel by alleged intellectual George Will on ABC's This 
Week. This despite the fact that Coulter's accusations have been as 
effectively discredited as Hitler's diaries. (The last time I checked, the 
folks at Tapped, the American Prospect's weblog, had compiled so many of 
these falsities it took them nearly 3,000 words to enumerate them. Coulter 
has also been ripped to shreds by dailyhowler.com, spinsanity.com, 
mediawhoresonline.com, Scoobie Davis Online and by Joe Conason in Salon. 
The most comprehensive compilation can supposedly be found at 
slannder.homestead.com. I cannot bring myself to actually wade into it.)

So what's the deal? Is looking like an anorexic Farrah Fawcett and wearing 
skirts so short they lack the dignity and reserve of Monica Lewinsky's 
thong enough to insure the embrace of the national entertainment state no 
matter what you say, just so long as your murderous bile is directed at 
"liberals"? Would it have worked for Saddam if he wore a size 6? I really 
don't know. Naïve optimist that I am, when I first picked up Coulter's book 
in galleys in the late spring, I felt pretty certain we were done with her. 
I mean, how even to engage someone who terms Christie Todd Whitman a 
"birdbrain" (page 51) and a "dimwit" (page 53); Jim Jeffords a "half-wit" 
(page 50); and Gloria Steinem a "deeply ridiculous figure" (page 37) who 
"had to sleep" with a rich liberal to fund Ms. magazine (page 38)--all of 
which makes her "a termagant" (page 39)? Coulter's done far worse since, of 
course, and yet, like one of those Mothralike creatures that feed on 
bullets and squashed Japanese villagers, the monster continues to grow, 
debasing everyone and everything in its wake. Coulter jokes about McVeigh 
blowing up the Times, and the Wall Street Journal--which was blown up by 
terrorists on September 11--rushes to her defense. Their man, Daniel Pearl, 
was murdered by terrorists in Pakistan. Have they no shame? At long last, 
have they no sense of decency left?