March 03, 2007
Vile Coulter Does It Again
Should we bomb Connecticut, kill their pundits, and convert them to Christianity?
Ann Coulter is a verbal suicide bomber, willing to blow away her credibility and that of those around her for a few extra moments of infamy. Sooner or later, CPAC and other conservative and Republican groups are going to learn that Coulter is far more interested in promoting herself than any ideology they share.
Captain Ed said it a bit more tactfully than I might, but he said it well:
At some point, Republicans will need to get over their issues with homosexuality. Regardless of whether one believes it to be a choice or a hardwired response, it has little impact on anyone but the gay or lesbian person. We can argue that homosexuality doesn't require legal protection, but not when we have our front-line activists referring to them as "faggots" or worse. That indicates a disturbing level of animosity rather than a true desire to allow people the same rights and protections regardless of their lifestyles.
Ann Coulter can be an entertaining and incisive wit. Unfortunately, she can also be a loose cannon, and CPAC might want to consider that the next time around.
Ann Coulter stopped being an asset for conservatives a long time ago. I think it is time we move on past her.
Posted by Confederate Yankee at March 3, 2007 09:41 AM
Frankly, I don't think it is fair to Ann to invite her knowing she flamed tham last year, released a pull no punches book last summer and on visits to H&C is practically frothing.
If they didn't want it, don't invite her. It seems to me everyone is using this to tout their homo-philic bona fides.
Its unfair to rake her over the coals for what anyone with reasoning power would have predicted.
People need to get thicker skins.
Geez, Edwards is an effeminate man who used to channel dead babies for a living and now wants to lead the free world.
Some people who just want to "all get along" or maybe have character flaws they just don't want displayed cannot tolerate a derogatory remark, so thay start "taking back words" and prohibiting their use.
Faggot is a derogatory term for and effeminate man, check wickopedia. Appling it to Edwards is appropriate.
Also, in a similar vein, I thing examining whether we want an Obama muslim for president deserves similar pointed derision.
i agree with RFYoung.
ann is funny and accurate.
That wasn't very cool of Ann to say. Oh well.
It was an ugly, off-color remark that inevitably reflects on her, the attendees, the sponsors, the candidates, and even the blog commenters who feel the need to defend it.
This all has less (or nothing) to do with homophobia or homophilia, than with bad manners, in this instance as displayed in a highly political context. The line would have been just as embarrassing, and just as un-funny, at a dinner party or anywhere other event where most attendees are expected, for instance, to have bathed recently and to avoid picking their noses in the middle of conversation.
It brought me back to Clinton impeachment days, when Coulter couldn't seem to let go of certain sordid footnotes to the Starr Report, and would continually re-cycle them, taking obvious pleasure in scandalizing other participants, the Lanny Davis's of the world, in whatever roundtable discussion, but continually underlining for middle-of-the-road viewers how little they wanted PEOPLE LIKE HER to take over.
It doesn't have to be a big deal. She could apologize, just like your ornery uncle might apologize after having a few too many and cussing at Thanksgiving in front of the kids, though I wonder if that might not conflict with her "I-wont-back-down" image.
CY is absolutely right. Coulter is shameless and will say absolutely anything to get her name in print. It's no coincidence that she used 'raghead' last year and 'faggot' this year. Her appearance at national Republican events, alongside the VP, says that the GOP is the party of reaction and bigotry.
IMO what the GOP needs to bring to the table is self-determination, merit, fiscal prudence, and Main Street values. Such a platform would have broad appeal among millions of level-headed Americans, myself included.
Instead the GOP tries to build a coalition around a motley assortment of bigots, Christian fundamentalists, tax warriors, and war enthusiasts. As a result a GOP leaders are forced to be duplicitous to keep all these groups happy.
RFYoung -- first of all, you know perfectly well that 'faggot' means homosexual and the associated stereotypes. No one is alleging that Edwards is gay. Criticism of presidential candidates should be related to the job. For instance, Coulter could have said that he lacks backbone, which might be a valid charge. She used the word 'faggot' to appeal the the lowest portion of the GOP, namely the bigots. It's truly unfortunate that the GOP provides a comfortable home for people like you and Coulter.
Lex Steele sounds like a bigoted christophobe, tax and spend liberal, candy-ass pacifist, Islamophilic, sodomite defender (but that's just a hunch).
The invectives of the Left are rarely questioned or discussed, e.g., Oberman, Franken, the Clintons, Begala, etc. Give Ann a break. You don't have to agree with her, but some of us do.
Wasn't she referring to the basketball player who just apologised ans will begin his sensitivity training in a week or two?
I believe its called irony.
Meanwhile, Bill Maher can make comments about how he's sorry the assassination attempt on VP Cheney failed (http://newsbusters.org/node/11169) and the left laughs along.
Let's compare these shall we? One was a joke (gone bad, possibly, but a joke.) The other serious.
Guess which one the left gets their panties in a bunch about.
great post--thanks...don't know if you've seen this video of Ann Coulter, but it's pretty classic:
Hey, if you invited Sid Vicious to the party, don't be surprised when he's pissing in the potted palms and stealing the silverware ;->
I'm again pleased by your measured response to Coulter's attack. As you no doubt know by now, I don't agree with you on many issues, but I appreciate your consistent decency.
Vilmar: were you as forgiving of Kerry's joke gone bad?
While I think all 3 of the comments (Kerry, Maher and Coulter's) were meant to be funny, I also think they all meant the underlying sentiments.
The question is, are you more offended by someone who:
a) insinuating a public figure is a homosexual
b) says they wished a public figure had successfully been assassinated
c) believes that our heroes in the armed forces are idiots?
Personally, I'm most offended by C. While A and B were also spoken by pundits (read that as "entertainers" or "talking heads"), C was uttered by a man who wants to lead our troops. That
s a recipe for disaster if ever there was one!
Drewas: "Lex Steele sounds like a bigoted christophobe, tax and spend liberal, candy-ass pacifist, Islamophilic, sodomite defender (but that's just a hunch)."
Drewas sounds like a man who's insecure about his political party. No doubt a quick refresher on the founding fathers will soothe his worried soul.
(N.B.: I mean no offense to anyone on this forum except for Drewas.)
The Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian Religion.
--Washington and Adams, Treaty of Tripoli
What have been Christianity's fruits? More or less in all places, pride and indolence in the Clergy, ignorance and servility in the laity; in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution.
The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter.
The whole history of these books is so defective and doubtful -- evidence that parts have proceeded from an extraordinary man; and that other parts are of the fabric of very inferior minds.
The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason.
All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian, or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions set up to terrify
and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit.
What influence, in fact, have ecclesiastical establishments had on society? In some instances they have been seen to erect a spiritual tyranny on the ruins of the civil authority; on many instances they have been seen upholding the thrones of political tyranny; in no instance have they been the guardians of the liberties of the
people. Rulers who wish to subvert the public liberty may have found an established clergy convenient auxiliaries. A just government, instituted to secure and perpetuate it, needs them not.
Prophet Joe, you put it all in context. No one has to listen to Coulter or Maher, and they were never elected to any position. Senator Kerry has the power to affect people's lives.
I'm glad they invited Ann. They needed someone in the room with some testosterone.
The fact that everyone is getting their undies in a bunch just proves Ann right.
She didn't say Edwards is a faggot she said we are no longer allowed to say Edwards is a faggot. She is right.
FAscinatingly enough, Lex, most of the original Colonists were in fact Christian and came here in order to practice their religon in the public sphere and in their public lives. Until the 1950's public exercise of religon by political officeholders was the mass rule and not the exception- and socially, America was a better place.
Perhaps you would be happier in a place where there really is a ban on religon: Cuba, where you could enjoy all the teenage prostitutes you wish. GO thou.
DaveP: as I said, those quotation were meant for the benefit of just one person.
Since you wish to intervene though, were Madison, Franklin, Jefferson, Washington and Adams socialists and pedophiles, or just people that quote them?
The Age of Enlightenment is lost of the likes of you. Perhaps you'd be happier in a theocracy? Go thou.
Sorry, I agree with the Yankee: Ann Coulter is an abrasive and foul-mouthed liability.
She would rather make a splash than be effective. Smart, but unwise. And maybe a bit too angry than she needs to be. Not a cheerful warrior.
I don't see anyone changing their vote because of something Coulter spouts anymore than the ranting of a Ward Churchill queer any democrat votes.
Does your plan to bomb CT and kill all their pundits include the amateur ones too? Cause maybe I should move.
OGMAFB. What's the heinous sin she's committed now? Oh yes, insinuating that the Blow-Dried Princess might not be as manly as sells well outside of San Francisco. Why, how DARE she? Everyone knows only militant homosexual groups are allowed to "out" politicians!
Yes, using the word "faggot" is crude and tacky. Far beneath her.
But this is the same old tactic she's always used. The woman is perfectly aware that the only press a conservative gets is BAD press, so she takes it and force-feeds it to them. About once or twice a year she deliberately drops the PC equivalent of the f-bomb at the policulti lawn party, and frothing liberals (and truckling conservatives)go into a tailspin..... and keep her on the front page while simultaneously making fools of themselves with their strangely selective fastidiousness.
Christ almighty, you people make more fuss over the woman saying something crude (and coincidentally painfully true) than you do about the politicians she criticizes--- who are out there committing libel, slander, and seditious treason on a daily frigging basis.
I think the term 'hand grenade' is the proper way to describe her comment. indiscriminately damaging everyone in the room. Worse off, she used it against someone who was doing a fine job of defeating himself. Edwards has zero change of getting the nod from the Dems. Why make a mockery of the CPAC convention other than her own self interest. "Well I just finished talking about myself for the last 20 minutes. What can I say now that will keep people talking about me for weeks?" The Convention should have been about Romney being the true conservative candidate for president. That's all been forgotten over her self-indulgent comment. Oh well, at least we still have Guiliani. He's not conservative, but he beat can Clintobama and will kick terrorist ass.
I was beginning to think I was the only native English speaker on the web!!
Editor & Publisher relates the story this way:
Speaking Friday at the annual Conservative Political Action Conference CPAC) in Washington, D.C., Coulter closed her remarks with: “I was going to have a few comments on the other Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards, but it turns out you have to go into rehab if you use the word ‘faggot,’ so I -- so kind of an impasse, can’t really talk about Edwards.”
For those of you that never took an English course after 6th grade, she said that if she "...can't really talk about Edwards" because of not wanting to "...use the word 'faggot'". She didn't say "call someone a 'faggot'"she said "use the word". Maybe you think that is what she meant, but with some effort I'm sure you could use that word in a sentence discussing Edward's political positions rather than his sexual ones. Possibly she was planning to use a word much worse than ‘faggot’ and lamenting what the punishment might be. And based on ‘tolerance’ what’s wrong with ‘faggot’? It's much milder than what she has been called, and I thought while the word might be rude, the condition was to be celebrated.
It's rude to be rude, but it's worse to tolerate the PC nonsense that Orwell warned us about a half a century ago. If you allow your opponents to make the rules (and break them with no consequence)the best you can do is a fighting withdrawal (otherwise known as a retreat). Civilized discourse is for civilized debate, otherwise you must fight in the way that your opponents understand. The problem with many conservatives inside the beltway is that they begin to believe the boundaries that the media and leftists set are laws of nature, not artificial constructs.
English is a language that can be very precise and everyone seems to be interpreting this rather than reading it as it was said. This is the same thing that is so irritating about the misuse of the language by the lame stream media, it's targeted to play to people whose jumping to conclusions based on inconclusive evidence is their main source of exercise.
Perhaps patent infringement on the use of technique, but which school of journalism actually holds the patent?
In what way is Edwards more "effeminate" than, for instance, George W. Bush -- who can't sleep on the road without his personal pillow (reported endearingly during the 2000 campaign), is known to be especially close to his mother, is obsessed with his own physical appearance, spends an unusually large number of hours per week engaged in activities designed to maintain a youthful appearance, etc., etc.
My point of course isn't that Bush IS effeminate -- it is that this silly schoolyard level of made up "political" argument can easily be aimed at ANYONE.
With everything that this nation has on its plate right now, its time to up the level of dignity and seriousness on display in our political debate.
America doesn't have time for silly people like Ann Coulter anymore -- or for ordinary citizens unable to comprehend the difference between juvenile name calling and a real understanding of the issues.
I have no idea why, at 45, Ann continues to dress like an early 70s hippie -- long, stringy hair, leather vests, mini-skirts -- roll her eyes like a foolish adolescent, or talk like a 9 year old aiming to shock the adults. But, whether or not she can or wants to grow up, it certainly is well past time for the rest of us to do so.