Gaaak! Do I maybe actually kind of agree with…Ann Coulter?

I may be rocking back and forth in the fetal position right now, but it’s true: Ann Coulter has written a column that is not completely filled with hate and venom. It actually kind of…makes sense. Here, see for yourself:

After pretending to consider various women and minorities for the Supreme Court these past few weeks, President Bush decided to disappoint all the groups he had just ginned up and nominate a white male. So all we know about him for sure is that he can’t dance and he probably doesn’t know who Jay-Z is. Other than that, he is a blank slate. Tabula rasa. Big zippo. Nada. Oh, yeah … We also know he’s argued cases before the Supreme Court. Big deal; so has Larry Flynt’s attorney. But unfortunately, other than that that, we don’t know much about John Roberts.

Hello? It’s what we’ve all been saying (or at least reading and then saying): John Roberts has no paper trail, John Roberts is a candidate whose views are not easily discerned, John Roberts is an unknown quantity.

Yes, he was nominated by Bush for his first all-important legacy-making Supreme Court seat, so there’s a rebuttable presumption that Roberts is all sorts of conservative. But we don’t know. No one knows. And if Ann Coulter is admitting that, then it really must be true. Roberts really is a wild card.

And while Democrats are surely a teensy bit relieved that they’re not dealing with a fire-breathing Bork, that at least this guy has the potential to go the way of Souter/Kennedy/O’Connor (wifely memberships notwithstanding), there must surely too be a sense of confusion: why would Bush waste his nomination on a wild card when he’s got a majority in the Senate? To deflect attention from Rove, sure; but this is a brash White House, cognizant of its power. That one doesn’t entirely add up.

For her part, Coulter doesn’t understand any of it. Conservatives are supposed to be crowing from on high; with majorities in the Senate, House and state legislatures, and a second-term prez in the White House it’s their due, dammit! (Even Hendrik Hertzberg admits this in the New Yorker: confirming a Dubya Supreme Court Justice “is a pill [Democrats] have known since last November that they wold have to swallow”).

Yet Bush gives us squeaky-clean Roberts, unremarkable judge and explicitly-disclaimed client advocate. For Coulter, White House assurances of Roberts’ conservative fitness for duty are not enough; well she remembers Souter. A frustrated Coulter channels Lloyd Grove and likens court-watchers to Kremlinologists searching for clues to the Roberts enigma. Hell, it’s not like the Dems have any more insight (although the debates ove the word “member” should provide some fun comic relief).

Anyhow, the point is, Coulter is making way too much sense here, and it’s scaring us. Where oh where did our formerly loathesome bile-spewing Annie go? Ah! There we go:

It’s always good to remind voters that Democrats are the party of abortion, sodomy and atheism, and nothing presents an opportunity to do so like a Supreme Court nomination.

Phew. Thank God. In this uncertain world, some things we just need to be able to count on.

SOUTER IN ROBERTS’ CLOTHING [Ann Coulter]

Create a social media strategy, launch your campaign, and track the results in our Social Media Marketing Boot Camp starting February 16. The online event and workshop will feature speakers including The Onion‘s Baratunde Thurston (left), Facebook’s Morin Oluwole, and bitly’s Tim Devane. Register now.