Patterico’s Pontifications

9/21/2006

More Tastelessness from Ann Coulter

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 7:59 am

In her latest column, Ann Coulter refers to John Warner as

Sen. John Warner — or, as the Times now calls him, the “courtly Virginian” (”fag-hag by proxy to Elizabeth Taylor” being beneath his dignity these days)

Evidently there is little that is beneath Coulter’s dignity.

63 Comments »

  1. That is so weird. I had already read her column and then came to your site and wondered where you had gotten this quote. It does not appear in the version posted at humanevents. I wonder how the editorial process differs there.

    http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=17148

    Stuff like this makes you understand how liberals think that the stupid things they say are really written by Karl Rove. No one would really write “fag hag” about a Senator in a column, must have been Howard Dean. Posting from Brazil, perhaps.

    Good DAY, sir.

    Comment by carlitos — 9/21/2006 @ 9:00 am

  2. She’s brutal, I’ll give you that. But let’s not misunderstand. The term”fag hag” refers to Elizabeth Taylor, not John Warner. How she and others have been saddled with that appellation is a topic for another thread. But there it is.

    The rest of the column should warm the hearts of political conservatives and criminal prosecutors alike.

    Comment by Ms. Judged — 9/21/2006 @ 9:13 am

  3. You read it every week so you can shake your head sadly and condemn it? Why bother even reading it, then?

    [What makes you think I read it every week? Someone sent me the link. — P]

    Comment by Robert — 9/21/2006 @ 9:38 am

  4. I’d rather have some intelligent opinions with an occasional tasteless crack, than paragraphs of exquisitely tasteful platitudes.

    And I’d rather see AC criticized for her opinions than her taste, though a rap on her tastebuds now and then wouldn’t hurt her excessively and might do good.

    Comment by Insufficiently Sensitive — 9/21/2006 @ 10:32 am

  5. Are you folks trying to say Liz is not a fag-hag?

    Comment by john p. — 9/21/2006 @ 10:48 am

  6. You read it every week so you can shake your head sadly and condemn it? Why bother even reading it, then?

    New to blogs, huh?

    Comment by Jim Treacher — 9/21/2006 @ 11:07 am

  7. Ann Coulter would not make a pimple on Elizabeth Taylor’s behind. The anorexic androgyne is simply jealous of one of cinema’s most beautiful women of all time who got herself seven husbands (one twice)while Ann Coulter is dating someone powered by Eveready or Duracell.

    Comment by nk — 9/21/2006 @ 11:14 am

  8. The rest of the column should warm the hearts of political conservatives and criminal prosecutors alike.

    With an exception for political conservatives or criminal prosecutors who love to hate Ann Coulter.

    [I remember liking a lot about what I read in the column, which is part of why it annoys me when she says indefensible stuff like the above. — P]

    Comment by Xrlq — 9/21/2006 @ 12:03 pm

  9. “Ann Coulter would not make a pimple on Elizabeth Taylor’s behind. The anorexic androgyne is simply jealous of one of cinema’s most beautiful women of all time who got herself seven husbands (one twice)while Ann Coulter is dating someone powered by Eveready or Duracell.”

    Wow, it took 7 posts for someone to make fun of AC’s looks. What self-restraint!

    Comment by sharon — 9/21/2006 @ 12:33 pm

  10. Well. I supose that if Ann aspired to making a pimple on Liz’s butt, her failure to do so could be viewed as a legitimate critcism. No evidence of that.

    Another problem is my apparent misunderstanding of the rules of matrimony. I have failed to realize, even after all these years, that the highest score wins. So Liz 7, Ann 0 is a good thing?

    Hollywood culture! I can’t keep up with it. I thought it was an article of faith among tinseltown distaff that one simply can’t be too rich or too thin. Another shiboleth down the drain? Sheesh, I need to get out more.

    One more question. If Ann would make a pimple on the royal haunch(es) of Ms. Liz, would that make her loved? Ann, I mean.

    Mr Xrlq, you need to get your consonants rearranged.

    Ciao. They still say that where Liz hangs, don’t they?

    Comment by Ms. Judged — 9/21/2006 @ 12:46 pm

  11. Yeah, Ms. Judged,

    Get seven men to love you enough to want to marry you (one of them twice) and then come back and talk “hag-fag”. Ann Coulter is a skinny skank with a big potty mouth who should keep her mouth shut about her betters.

    Comment by nk — 9/21/2006 @ 12:52 pm

  12. I suspose I could be fairly criticized as difficult if I were to point out that getting 7 men to marry you, carries with it the inescapable fact that you convinced at least 6 to divorce you as well. One of them twice.

    While I’m leaning toward snippy, it’s “fag hag” not “hag fag”.

    I feel the same way about Liz you do Mr. nk. It hasn’t always been that way. I didn’t care much about her one way or the other until I watched a speech she made at some televised awards banquet a few years back. “Man” I said to myself ” that old gal can really hold her booze!”. Big, big fan ever since.

    Comment by Ms. Judged — 9/21/2006 @ 1:06 pm

  13. NK, seven men and eight marriages strikes me as a rather odd measure of success. As one who’s been married only once - to the same woman the whole time - I must be a real loser in your book.

    Comment by Xrlq — 9/21/2006 @ 1:21 pm

  14. liz taylor was a beautiful woman once. ann coulter? she’d do ok as a hooker in vegas, but not in liz’s class.

    Comment by assistant devil's advocate — 9/21/2006 @ 2:28 pm

  15. I can’t stand AC’s attitude and language. However to say that there is little below AC’s dignity.

    Frankly, AC’s attitude, and the responses she draws and the “debates” that ensue are like watching maggots eat rotten flesh. We all hate them both, but at least the maggots are doing something, while the flesh is just dead and rotten, and waiting to be eaten by the likes of AC, I mean maggots.

    Comment by Wickedpinto — 9/21/2006 @ 2:44 pm

  16. […] Coulter’s made her usual helpful contribution to the debate, too. […]

    Pingback by Hot Air » Blog Archive » Breaking: Bush, McCain reach compromise on “torture” — 9/21/2006 @ 2:44 pm

  17. ADA:

    Did you just say what I thought you did?

    Comment by Ms. Judged — 9/21/2006 @ 2:51 pm

  18. Liz Taylor admired, don’t make me laugh.

    Comment by jeffersonranch — 9/21/2006 @ 2:55 pm

  19. Oh, my goodness. For a group that generally claims offense at the street lingo Coulter uses in her columns, this group has gone her two better.

    Insufficiently sensitive = Bingo.

    nk = get some more therapy; it’s not working yet.

    Anyone = what on earth does the phrase “fag hag by proxy to Elizabeth Taylor” mean? I read the column and figured it was some inside baseball comment that only a NY Times editor was going to get…

    Comment by Loves AC — 9/21/2006 @ 3:36 pm

  20. Since “fag hag …. Taylor” is in quotes, you don’t suppose Ms. Coulter is just referring to what the Times used to call him, as opposed to what it is now calling him? If so, they aren’t her words, and the “tastelessness” is not hers, but the Times’? Has anyone looked into that?

    Comment by ytba — 9/21/2006 @ 3:42 pm

  21. Some people know, and some don’t, but Liz Taylor was once married to Senator John Warner.

    And I want to clarify for people who may not have heard the term before, but the reason Liz Taylor is referred to as a ‘fag-hag,’ is because she surrounded herself with many male actor friends who were gay or bi.

    It’s a term which sounds mean-spirited, but it’s a term which is somewhat common among Hollywood.

    Comment by Desert Rat — 9/21/2006 @ 3:44 pm

  22. it’s a term which is somewhat common among Hollywood

    That’s what I thought; a woman that likes gay men. Sorry, I’m really slow on this one: so, ET was married to JW, is regarded as a fag-hag (I don’t even like typing that)…and so…what?

    Comment by Loves AC — 9/21/2006 @ 3:49 pm

  23. The term “fag hag” refers to females who regularly choose homosexuals as their male escorts or as those with whom they regularly socialize.

    Comment by Ms. Judged — 9/21/2006 @ 3:52 pm

  24. Ms. Judged,

    Yeah, we have that. So what does she mean?

    Comment by Loves AC — 9/21/2006 @ 3:53 pm

  25. I read that and I cringed.

    I think Ann Coulter was once capable of insightful, funny, hard hitting hyperbole on demand… now it’s more difficult for her and offensive shock is her stock in trade.

    This is sad.

    Comment by Christoph — 9/21/2006 @ 4:16 pm

  26. Liz donated a million-dollar hospital on wheels to New Orleans. She’s still a beautiful woman. As for Ann, maybe not enough sex.

    Comment by Vermont Neighbor — 9/21/2006 @ 4:32 pm

  27. Ann Coulter would not make a pimple on Elizabeth Taylor’s behind. The anorexic androgyne is simply jealous of one of cinema’s most beautiful women of all time who got herself seven husbands (one twice)while Ann Coulter is dating someone powered by Eveready or Duracell.

    Glad to see you’re keeping up those standards of how to talk around ladies, nk.

    Comment by Anwyn — 9/21/2006 @ 4:41 pm

  28. I thought the part about Rosie in a burka was a very worthwhile contribution of the column and should be seriously considered by management of ABC.

    Comment by daleyrocks — 9/21/2006 @ 4:41 pm

  29. Just admit it, Warner stepped on his dong on this, (led by the nose by McCain) now they are backing up like a crawdad. As a voting resident (and retired military) of Va. I let him know that he lost a lot of votes, especially from the military and retired military that make up a big percentage of the votes he once counted on.

    Who can prove that anyone married Liz out of love. Money could have been the motivation in most or all of the cases, that is men wanting her money. It’s not beyond a possibility. Hanoi John Kerry married two women to get his hands on their money. Losers do it every day.

    Comment by Scrapiron — 9/21/2006 @ 4:46 pm

  30. This is great! A group of people commenting on everything except for her column, and the few who blast her don’t even realize she was paraphrasing? What a joke!!!

    From an interview Ann did earlier in the year…

    Q: Have you encountered anyone on the left who has read “Godless” carefully and was willing to debate its points with you? How’d it go? Have any critics addressed the content rationally? If so, what did you think? If not, do you find it amusing?

    A: Only one: Michael Eric Dyson. The rest just want to talk about why my skirts are so short and why I’m “mean.” It’s almost as if my critics are avoiding the issues I write about in the book.

    I guess that applies to ‘bloggers as well.

    Comment by Danno — 9/21/2006 @ 4:49 pm

  31. Patterico, did you know that this is a common Hollyword phrase? If not, does learning that it is change your judgment? And either way, would you be as critical of David Letterman or South Park if you heard the phrase on their shows?

    Comment by Doc Rampage — 9/21/2006 @ 4:57 pm

  32. Exercising the editorial license…

    A fairly typical Ann Coulter paragraph, as such things go, found at Townhall.com: [Sen. John] McCain, along with Sen. Lindsey Graham and Sen. John Warner — or, as the Times now calls him, the “courtly Virginian” (”fag-hag by proxy to……

    Trackback by dustbury.com — 9/21/2006 @ 4:59 pm

  33. AC has been called “fag hag” herself (she hangs out with Matt Drudge, and used to be best buds with David Brock). Her whole schtick is outrageousness, with some VERY edgy humor. So are the haters put out about the word “fag”? Like all of a sudden they are the arbiters of P.C.? Or are they defending Liz Taylor, that silly, alcoholic, foodaholic, wedaholic, Michael Jackson-loving, $h1tbag who hasn’t worked in 30 years?

    Look, AC is guilty of poor judgment and some bad jokes. Haters, leave the self-righteous indignation for the Jenny Craig N.O.W. set.

    Comment by TimesHater — 9/21/2006 @ 6:06 pm

  34. She has more courage than the P.C writers who are aghast that a mear woman has the gravitas they wish they had.She’s funny ,but mainly she’s right and thats what most can’t stand.Get over your selves words never killed any one,over reacting has.

    Comment by jainphx — 9/21/2006 @ 6:20 pm

  35. Xrlq, Comment #13: I have also only married once and am still married to the one woman I managed to bamboozle. But do you remember a while back Ann Coulter accusing Clinton of latent homosexuality? I think this is in the same vein. The lady has issues with men who like women (other than her). I watched Maureen Dowd going through the same phase while I was reading her.

    Anwyn, Comment #27: What can I say? “Fag-hag”, “raghead”, “broads enjoying their husbands’ deaths” just brings out the best in me.

    Comment by nk — 9/21/2006 @ 6:20 pm

  36. Look, AC is guilty of poor judgment and some bad jokes. Haters, leave the self-righteous indignation for the Jenny Craig N.O.W. set.

    I’m a lover, not a hater.

    Comment by Patterico — 9/21/2006 @ 6:25 pm

  37. NK: in the part of the gay community with which i’m familiar, oddly, the term “fag hag” is not considered insulting.

    Comment by aphrael — 9/21/2006 @ 6:26 pm

  38. TimesHater:

    I am defending Liz Taylor who as far as I know has nothing to do with Senator Warner’s votes in the Senate. It was a gratuitous slur by Ann Coulter. As for me being a “hater” of Ann Coulter: No, I do not hate her, but just what did “Liz Taylor, that silly, alcoholic, foodaholic, wedaholic, Michael Jackson-loving, $h1tbag who hasn’t worked in 30 years?” do to offend you?

    Comment by nk — 9/21/2006 @ 6:34 pm

  39. Evidently there is little that is beneath Coulter’s dignity.

    Just out of curiosity, has she done any booby blogging?

    Comment by Dan Collins — 9/21/2006 @ 6:35 pm

  40. With what?

    Comment by Christoph — 9/21/2006 @ 7:20 pm

  41. #34 jainphx

    Your the only one that seems to get it.

    Comment by bald01 — 9/21/2006 @ 7:34 pm

  42. The pimple thing reminds me of a sophomoric joke I heard as a high school sophomore. What has more finger prints than the FBI? Ans. Elizabeth Taylor’s A**.

    Comment by george — 9/21/2006 @ 7:35 pm

  43. I really get a kick out of the nuerotic liberals who go frantic when a Conservative commentator actually stoops to the level of discourse normally reserved for the Liberal commentators.

    ET is and was an overrated windbag that was past her prime by her mid twenties. She is not a saintly woman beyond reproach. For NK to even attempt to imply ET’s 7 failed marriages as some sort of virtue, is nothing short of liberal nonsense.

    AC drops her bombs to shock people, keep your attention and make many of us laugh. She also gives the liberals something to whine about. Only the simple minded cannot see through the bluster and see the real message, which in my mind is usually on target.

    Comment by Steve H USA — 9/22/2006 @ 8:03 am

  44. “Evidently there is little that is beneath Coulter’s dignity.”

    Or those obsessed with her looks.

    Comment by sharon — 9/22/2006 @ 12:11 pm

  45. “Patterico, did you know that this is a common Hollyword phrase? If not, does learning that it is change your judgment? And either way, would you be as critical of David Letterman or South Park if you heard the phrase on their shows?”

    Comment by Doc Rampage — 9/21/2006 @ 4:57 pm

    My first reaction was to praise Patterico for calling out this type of rhetorical warfare on Coulter’s part, and I still commend. But comments like the above convince me further that many, many righties would stand by her words even if she was advocating torture.
    Oh, wait, she’s done that.
    Or standing by her side if she advocated invading several countries at once, executing their leaders and converting all to Christianity.
    Oh, that’s right, she did that, too.
    She’s a circus sideshow, and you only show your lockstep sheeple tendencies when you condone the crap that comes out of her pie-hole.
    She’s not a political commentator, she’s the clown that entertains you before the high wire act. But many don’t find it all that entertaining. She just happens to be a vulgar, classless clown.

    Comment by mmm...lemonheads — 9/22/2006 @ 12:19 pm

  46. I just watched the YouTube video of Coulter on Hardball cracking wise with the “Bill Clinton’s a fag” jokes. So I review the comments on this thread again (I don’t know why I subject myself to it, I guess it’s the “rubbernecking at a traffic incident thing”, but there was more gold:

    “She has more courage than the P.C writers who are aghast that a mear woman has the gravitas they wish they had.She’s funny ,but mainly she’s right and thats what most can’t stand.Get over your selves words never killed any one,over reacting has.”

    Comment by jainphx — 9/21/2006 @ 6:20 pm

    I really try to avoid ad hominem, but you’re quite
    pathetic.

    Comment by mmm...lemonheads — 9/22/2006 @ 2:32 pm

  47. Or standing by her side if she advocated invading several countries at once, executing their leaders and converting all to Christianity. Oh, that’s right, she did that, too.

    Comment by mmm…lemonheads — 9/22/2006 @ 12:19 pm

    Lemonhead, your mistake is taking this rhetoric literally. Proof that irony is not for everyone.

    Look, she has crossed ‘the line’ before and will again. That is what happens to those who tread near ‘the line.’

    Comment by TimesHater — 9/22/2006 @ 4:46 pm

  48. Irony is usually subtle, and at least slightly nuanced. Early Letterman is irony. Some Monty Python is irony.
    Coulter is not irony, she’s moronic and base, and “the line”, as you put it is not crossed or uncrossed. You’re either informative or not, insightful or not, clever or not, funny or not. She’s none.

    Comment by mmm...lemonheads — 9/22/2006 @ 7:25 pm

  49. Ann Coulter is joy to read and a beauty to see. Her latest book “Godless” is right on. She has the ability to clearly state liberal policies and actions exactly like a mirror. You liberals that don’t like the reflection should quit trying to break the mirror. That’ll probably be about 7 more years of bad luck for you.

    Comment by krusher — 9/23/2006 @ 4:38 am

  50. What of her disdain for veracity?

    http://www.whatliberalmedia.com/apndx_1.htm

    I know many won’t visit just by the title, but it contains quite a little rundown of the shabby fact-checking and sourcing she did for her book “Slander”. She’s not only vulgar, she’s lazy.

    Comment by mmm...lemonheads — 9/23/2006 @ 6:01 am

  51. She’s not lazy, mmm…lemonheads, SHE JUST MAKES STUFF UP. Truth does not stand in her way when she needs to feed her readers their raw meat. Take the “fag-hag” comment here. Warner and Taylor have been divorced for 24 years. Taylor has nothing to do with Warner in the Senate and Warner has nothing to do with Taylor associating with gay men (if even that is not something that Coulter just made up). But her innuendo was that Warner gets his jollies by getting Taylor to play “Will & Grace”. She hides behind the New York Times v. Sullivan protection from lawsuits for slander against public figures while decrying the alleged “Slander” committed by her targets. She’s despicable.

    Comment by nk — 9/23/2006 @ 6:26 am

  52. nice try. go to http://www.anncoulter.com and the archives and you will see that ann didnt say f** she said hag-fag stop misrepresenting things to further ur agenda.

    Comment by Gary — 9/23/2006 @ 9:37 am

  53. It’s interesting that people who swing by here one time and see this post (like krusher and Gary) simply assume I’m a liberal. Conservatives can’t be against such nonsense?

    Comment by Patterico — 9/23/2006 @ 12:14 pm

  54. Right on, krusher. &nbsp AC speaks in the only way fog-brained
    liberals can understand - harsh, scathing, and to the point.

    In the whiney world of liberalism, the complaints and invectives
    drown out most reasonable discourse.

    Coulter uses language like a taser. &nbsp It’s the only way to get
    their attention.

    Comment by chaffer — 9/23/2006 @ 4:47 pm

  55. Somehow, Patterico, I don’t think you’re going to get that exclusive interview with Ann. No, its just not in the cards. You stand a better chance Dean Baquet or Mike Hiltzik will call and offer to pick up the lunch tab, than Ms Coulter would agree to sit for questions. Too bad, it could have been interesting, entertaining, and informative.

    Comment by Black Jack — 9/23/2006 @ 4:58 pm

  56. “She’s not lazy, mmm…lemonheads, SHE JUST MAKES STUFF UP. Truth does not stand in her way when she needs to feed her readers their raw meat.”

    That is the gist of it, nk. They will defend her regardless of her baseless and ridiculous claims, as the righties abide to “it’s not wrong if it’s RIGHT”. I’ve been trying to find true conservatives who preach the true gospel of their faith, but these days I find none.
    Though I will give an exception to our host, as he excoriated her with due diligence.

    Comment by mmm...lemonheads — 9/23/2006 @ 9:57 pm

  57. I think that you have to look a all writers , the ones you like and the ones that are wrong all the time (lol JUST KIDDING…Yeesh liberals) as batters in a literary batting line up. Some have a higher batting average than others. Which means that at certain times in their “at bats’ THEY STRIKE OUT! I’m not sure what affect AC wanted there in that phrase but she she struck out on that one. Better luck next time ( friendly pat to the butt) hit the showers kid. Awright who’s up next? AWWW jeeez Franken thats a g-ddam Football helmet Son! get with the game….No you can’t make one outta tinfoil!!! yeeesh…

    Comment by paul from fl — 9/23/2006 @ 11:03 pm

  58. Paul from fl, your metaphor was vivid (if not as accurate) and made me lose the coffee on the monitor. Thx.

    Comment by mmm...lemonheads — 9/24/2006 @ 7:30 am

  59. SHE JUST MAKES STUFF UP. Truth does not stand in her way when she needs to feed her readers their raw meat. Take the “fag-hag” comment here. Warner and Taylor have been divorced for 24 years. Taylor has nothing to do with Warner in the Senate and Warner has nothing to do with Taylor associating with gay men (if even that is not something that Coulter just made up). But her innuendo was that Warner gets his jollies by getting Taylor to play “Will & Grace”.

    She said:

    (”fag-hag by proxy to Elizabeth Taylor” being beneath his dignity these days)

    That doesn’t say that this is a current state of affairs, but that it is in the past.

    It’s crude, tasteless, pointless and tactless, but it isn’t factually incorrect. Your conclusion really doesn’t follow from the statement, nk.

    Comment by Pablo — 9/24/2006 @ 7:59 am

  60. It does not explicitly say that it was even in the past. That’s what annoys me the most about her, Pablo. She is always making these “have you stopped beating your wife” statements. The lie is not explicit, it is in the innuendo. Anyway, I am not going to change anyone’s mind about Ann Coulter. She has her fans and anti-fans and she does her best to keep them polarized. I should have just commented, “Behead all who insult Elizabeth Taylor”.

    Comment by nk — 9/24/2006 @ 10:19 am

  61. And for added emphasis, “behead all who insult Elizabeth Taylor, and convert them to christianity just before”.

    Comment by mmm...lemonheads — 9/26/2006 @ 10:44 am

  62. […] Coulter’s made her usual helpful contribution to the debate, too. […]

    Pingback by MyPhotoshop » Breaking: Bush, McCain reach compromise on “torture” — 9/28/2006 @ 10:34 am

  63. […] Coulter’s made her usual helpful contribution to the debate, too. […]

    Pingback by MyPhotoshop » Breaking: Bush, McCain reach compromise on “torture”; Update: Water-boarding forbidden — 9/28/2006 @ 10:35 am

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a comment

    

Live Preview


Powered by WordPress.