Coulter Screams for Attention, Again — Losing Whatever Supporters She Still Had
I have criticized Ann Coulter countless times on this site. (For some examples, see here, here, here, here, and here.) I have taken a lot of flak from many of my commenters for this.
But this time, I think even her past supporters will agree that she’s gone too far:
The day’s most controversial speaker proved to be conservative pundit Ann Coulter, who at the end of her speech — which followed Romney’s — used a slur to refer to Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards.
Coulter said she had intended to comment on the former senator from North Carolina, “but it turns out you have to go into rehab if you use the word ‘faggot,’ so I … can’t really talk about Edwards.”
Watch the video here . . . on John Edwards’s site, where he’s using it as a fundraising device.
Now, it’s been obvious for quite some time that Coulter says these sorts of things as part of a cynical campaign to generate controversy, keep her name in the headlines, and ultimately, to sell more books. I have wondered when she is finally going to go so far that these efforts become counterproductive. I think we’ve now reached that point.
(Former) fervent Coulter supporter sharon says (emphasis in original):
I used to like Ann Coulter. Used to. I read her books and columns and laughed at the way the lefties came unglued any time her name was mentioned in a comment thread. I even defended Coulter’s flamboyant rhetoric in multiple threads at Patterico’s Pontifications. But even I have tired of Coulter’s bomb-throwing. It’s counter-productive. It gives cover to whacked out lefties. And it isn’t even funny.
Someone needs to tell Ann her 15 minutes of fame is over.
Ann, when you’ve lost sharon, you’ve lost your base. Trust me on this.
Another fervent Coulter supporter is local L.A. radio talk show host Al Rantel. Who is gay. He may not abandon all support for Coulter like he should, but I can’t believe he’s very happy right now.
The worst thing about episodes like this is that they get used by the left to tarnish everyone on the right. Edwards gets to use it as a fundraising device. Howard Dean gets to call on presidential candidates to denounce Coulter (and they should).
And cynical lefties with no regard for the truth — the name Glenn Greenwald already popped into your head; I know it did — get the chance to preen and clown around, pretending that Coulter’s disgusting comments have drawn no criticism from the right:
This is why I wrote so extensively about the Edwards blogger “scandal” and the Cheney comments “scandal.” The people feigning upset over those matters are either active participants in, or passive aiders and abetters of, a political movement that, at its very core — not at its fringes — knowingly and continuously embraces the most wretched and obvious bigotry and bloodthirsty authoritarianism. They love Ann Coulter — and therefore continue to make her a venerated part of their political events — because she provides an outlet, a venting ground, for the twisted psychological impulses and truly hateful face that drives the entire pro-Bush, right-wing spectacle.
A brief run around the blogosphere shows that this is, of course, a lie . . . like virtually everything else that guy says.
Yeah, that’s just what CPAC needs — an association with homophobia. Nice work, Ann.
Dean Barnett at Hewitt’s blog:
Idiotic. Disgusting. Stupid. Moronic.
I guess you could say that Ann loves to shock us, but at this point, who’s shocked? She obviously can’t behave well enough to attend a respectable political gathering. It’s not a lack of intelligence. It’s an indifference to self-control and a preening sort of narcissism that compels her to need the spotlight, even if it’s unflattering.
[A]ll she does is come out on the national stage once every few months, say a few outrageous and indefensible things, and proceed to make the conservative movement look like the horrible ogre that liberals say that it is. Now all she does is say these awful things that increase her celebrity and her book sales but do nothing to further the interests of American conservatism. Yes, it is high time for the conservative movement to move on. Ann Coulter’s got to go. I hope every single one of the Republican presidential candidates disown her, I hope Vice President Cheney disowns her, I hope President Bush disowns her, I hope CPAC disowns her, and I hope every single conservative in America disowns her. The conservative movement will only be the better for it.
Michelle Malkin — who is often unfairly compared with Coulter, but who denounced Coulter for her disgusting “ragheads” remark — reported from the event and said:
A smattering of laughter.
Not from this corner.
Crickets chirping.
[I]f we conservatives really care about our movement and the people who represent it, then we will do everything in our power to limit the exposure of this ghastly person who sells hate like Frosted Flakes and laughs at all of us while carrying her loot all the way to the bank.
Ann Coulter stopped being an asset for conservatives a long time ago. I think it is time we move on past her.
I’m no fan of John Edwards, but that’s just a stupid joke. It’s over the line.
Joe Gandelman has a pretty good roundup.
As the saying goes: don’t go away mad, Ann. Just go away.
It’s too bad. She writes some brilliant, often well researched articles, and then does something like this to screw it all up.
Comment by Kevin — 3/3/2007 @ 2:58 pm
I’ve seen “Twiggy with Tourette’s” thrown around, which doesn’t really capture it but rolls off the tongue better than “PT Barnum without the scruples.”
Comment by Jim Treacher — 3/3/2007 @ 3:08 pm
John Edwards is a phony as a politician and a lawyer. Its best that he is cast away. Politics is dirty and not always fair.
Comment by rab — 3/3/2007 @ 3:14 pm
Not this time. Does anybody remember the Breck Girl bringing up someone’s lesbianism in a Vice-Presidential debate with her father? To hell with that blow-dried “faggot”.
Comment by nk — 3/3/2007 @ 3:17 pm
Coulter’s rhetoric has always been too strident for me but here’s another disappointed conservative.
Comment by DRJ — 3/3/2007 @ 3:24 pm
Before the PC world broke thru, we used to look at what people meant when they said something. Now we simply look at what they say.
Calling Edwards a “faggot”, “Breck Girl”, “Silky Pony”, effiminate or any other WORD that does and can mean a feminine wimp of a man MEANS the same thing no matter what WORD is used.
I’ve lived 3 and a half decades (not long to some) and this word (’faggot’) has ALWAYS meant ’sissy-boy’ or someone who is unmanly. Until such time that it became the victim word for a whole select group of people.
When Ann inferred that Edwards was an unmanly wimp (notice she never called him that, only inferred), she was no more doing what most people on the right do, she was making fun of his primpness and feminity(sp) but she used a word that seems to not pass the PC test.
Just because a group of people decide that a word is talking about them does it mean it actually is.
Comment by Lord Nazh — 3/3/2007 @ 3:33 pm
Yes, Lord N, but some words matter more than others. That’s why we can’t use the word niggardly anymore. Think of it as a modern-day version of Carlin’s 7 dirty words.
Comment by DRJ — 3/3/2007 @ 3:37 pm
It seems that context only matters in defense. When people (me, you, patterico) are defending someone, we look to see what they mean: Did she mean to impugne all homosexuals, did she mean to ‘hurt the feelings’ of a group of people? The answer would be no, she meant to make fun of Edwards.
When someone attacks, they don’t care about context only the word. (hence the fallout from the joke about Edwards and about liberals checking into rehab for using the word).
Certain words yes are ‘untouchable’ but have been so for a very long time. Every segment of society uses those words in the same way and means roughly the same things by them. The term niggardly can and is still used, it is carefully used though.
The term faggot is used all across this country today, yesterday and will be tomorrow and most of the time it still refers to the manliness of the person it is used on. The WORD should (or should not) hurt the feelings of the one it is used on, not the people that simply decided that their skin is too thin to take the language.
Comment by Lord Nazh — 3/3/2007 @ 3:54 pm
Where do you live?
faggot
noun
1. offensive term for an openly homosexual man
WordNet® 2.1, © 2005 Princeton University
fag·got
n. Offensive Slang
Used as a disparaging term for a homosexual man.
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
fag·got
–noun
Slang: Disparaging and Offensive. a male homosexual.
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006.
I think everyone agrees who the word is talking about.
Comment by Tracy — 3/3/2007 @ 4:04 pm
I’d say what I think about all of this introspective hand-wringing, but apparently if you use the word “faggot,” Patterico deletes your comment.
What the hell, I’ll say what I think anyway:
Ann Coulter was absolutely wrong to use the term “faggot,” and it stings because people applauded her, and it stings because many of the people applauding agree that gay people are terrible and not worthy of respect as human beings. That’s the mainstream view in the GOP. It might as well be a party plank. Agreeing not to use a certain word in public doesn’t change that one whit.
Comment by Daryl Herbert — 3/3/2007 @ 4:08 pm
Hey Daryl, your comment hasn’t been deleted yet. Kind of puts the lie to your whole point, doesn’t it?
Comment by DRJ — 3/3/2007 @ 6:35 pm
OK.
I hope you are all feeling smug and happy now. The Right has come out and savaged Coulter for her comments. Just like we always attack those on the Right who stumble in some way.
Nixon lies we force him to resign. Clinton lies, and the Left rushes to defend him. Packwood sexually harasses, and we toss him overboard. Clinton sexual assaults (and possibly rapes) and the Left defends him. Foley sends suggestive e-mails to a male page, and we savage him. Studds has sexual relations with a male page, and the Left re-elects him, and gives him a leadership position. Lott makes a stupid off hand remark, and loses his standing in the party. Byrd is a KKK organizer and gets lionized by the Left. Bork and Thomas get mauled, and we allow Bader-Ginsberg to sail through. (and what do we get for this? Shrill partizan attacks on Alito and Roberts)
Does it ever do us any good? Does the right ever get any credit for policing our own? Does it stop the raving attacks from the Left? No.
The most the Republican candidates should have said was: “Coulter does not, and has never represented me. However Marcotte was hired by the Edwards campaign after making much worse remarks. You should be asking Edwards to repudiate her.”
Comment by gahrie — 3/3/2007 @ 7:06 pm
Ann really isn’t the sharpest knife in the shed, either…(see video)
http://minor-ripper.blogspot.com/2006/12/ann-coulter-gets-owned.html
Comment by Minor Ripper — 3/3/2007 @ 7:09 pm
Speaking as a semi-reformed liberal, I must say that I’ve never read anything by Coulter that hasn’t made me have a sudden urge to wash my hands. Her hyperbolics are just too much for me. And if she thinks those hyperbolics are some form of intelligent discourse, then she has serious reality issues.
But her remark seems to be a joke aimed more at PC-ness than Edwards. She’s offended me worse before. But faggot was an insult thirty five years ago when I was a kid, and I doubt it has gotten less insulting over the years.
It is also, however possible, that she meant to call Edwards a block of wooden fuel or a bassoon
But I did feel moved to send her publisher an email after her last book–the one in which she said that Jews were really Christians . It read, more or less as follows:
“As a Jew, I object to being called a Christian. I am not a Christian. I have several reasons for not being a Christian, one of which is the fact that Ms. Coulter is one.”
Comment by kishnevi — 3/3/2007 @ 7:21 pm
Of course, we can’t really generalize anything from the anonymous clapping her remarks received.
Comment by whitd — 3/3/2007 @ 7:25 pm
Screw Ann and he name cajling. That said, in defense of CPAc, what applause she got was clearly for the absurdity that, today, you have to go into rehab for using a word.
But even so she is complelely unhinged and illogical. After seeing her on Fox a few times lately I quite seriously wondered whether she was taking something. She wore jeans on tv, which didn’t seem to cry out “I have my shit together” on hannity and colmes, a show where the pundits usually wear suits. She was almost literally hyperventilating … talking about construction materials and candles to Daryl Hannah, who is a loon but looked quite sane by comparison.
Comment by Carlitos — 3/3/2007 @ 8:35 pm
“Last year at the same event, she warned Arab “ragheads” about violence that would be done to them and called for Supreme Court justices to be murdered — and received standing ovations.”
Rats leaving the drowing ship HMS Coulter
Lord Nazh, you’re a fucking genius, you are.
Almost as smart as the woman herself
Comment by ipaddress — 3/3/2007 @ 8:59 pm
Calling someone a “faggot” is no more an insult to all gays than calling someone a “fat-ass” is an insult to all overweight people.
Comment by nk — 3/3/2007 @ 9:33 pm
*sigh*
I like Ann, but in small doses. Some topics she’s dead on about…
If anyone knows Ann, pass a message to her for me, and semi-smitten republican…
“Ann, look behind you… There’s the line… Please just stop dear… Pretty please?”
Comment by Scott Jacobs — 3/3/2007 @ 9:50 pm
I am encouraged to see that she is being held to task for these comments. Lots of posters as the sites noted are agreeing it is needed.
The party that proves consistently it has more adults and less petty behavior is the one that will draw the moderates.
Good step in the right direction.
I disagree about Malkin though. I think she is an opportunist but lets her fans make the outrageous comments. Hotair is full of them (posters with wild assertions and labeling) and frankly many are simply embarassing.
Comment by Moderate Hick — 3/3/2007 @ 10:56 pm
[...] Paterico gets is right here: “The worst thing about episodes like this is that they get used by the left to tarnish everyone on the right. Edwards gets to use it as a fundraising device.” [...]
Pingback by nospeedbumps.com » Blog Archive » Ann Coulter: The Michael Moore of the Right — 3/3/2007 @ 11:08 pm
Some people here are saying that “faggot” just means feminine. This is like saying that “N–ger” means whatever stereotype was associated with blacks in the 19th century.
“Faggot” means “person I really REALLY hate and disregard as worthy of human rights”. Think about it. Who says that word and what do they really think of the people its describing? It does not mean “breck girl”.
It’s a slur. Ann Coulter used a slur at a major conservative conference knowing it would make it harder for Republicans to win the war effort. she did it so she could enrich herself with her notorious persona through CNN, book deals, news columns, etc. she’s not only out of line, she’s willing to place her own good over the safety of our troops and our nation. I really resent her actions.
Don’t defend the word “faggot” just because you are ignorant of the true hateful tone implicit in its use. Use the internet and learn just how awful this term is. Some words really are no good to say. It’s got nothing to do with being PC, it’s just plain obviously hateful even if you do have some claim against some gay right or something. If you really want to convey that you hate gay folks and wish them ill, that’s the time to use that word.
Comment by Dustin — 3/3/2007 @ 11:55 pm
“Stumble” would imply that this is an anomaly for her. It’s not.
Guess we’ll just have to settle for living up to our own standards.
Comment by Jim Treacher — 3/4/2007 @ 12:04 am
Maybe, after Ann gets out of rehab, she can start a new show with Bill Maher. “Dumb and Dumber” might be a good working title.
Comment by Kevin Murphy — 3/4/2007 @ 12:30 am
Count me as one who is not going to abandon Ann Coulter just because she used a mean word, not until someone can explain to me why “faggot” is out of bounds but leftist terms of contempt for conservatives and Christians are not. This idea that saying “faggot” is equivalent to expressing hatred for gays is ludicrous. The fact that so many people, even conservatives, take such a laughable position seriously is an indicator of how much the left still controls culture and language.
This control of culture and language is used to control the overall political environment to their benefit. Ann is aware of this and is doing her part to break that control, and you conservatives who are jumping all over Ann to try to “protect” the conservative movement from being viewed as a bunch of meanies are helping the left in their efforts to control culture by echoing them. Whatever short-term gains come about from this attack on Coulter are going to be swamped in the long run by the fact that the left is going to continue to define conservative positions as being mean and we are going to have to keep defending ourselves from being viewed as cruel just for having conservative positions.
You are pro-life? You hate women!
You are pro-Second Amendment? You want to see high school kids gunned down in school!
You are against gay marriage? You hate gays!
You don’t want to pay people who aren’ working? You want poor people to starve!
You want to reform Social Security? You want helpless old people to starve!
You want to control our borders? You hate Mexicans!
Get ready for another decade of this because it will never change as long as influential conservatives keep going along with PC in order to not seem mean.
Comment by Doc Rampage — 3/4/2007 @ 2:49 am
The thing that bothers me the most about Ann is that there is apparently no such thing as a good-faith disagreement, as far as she is concerned, even among conservatives.
With her solipcism, sanctimony and inflammatory language, she has gradually morphed into an ugly mirror image of the very things she hates.
To the extent she still has anything to offer mainstream conservatives, it is to serve as a warning for the rest of us:
Comment by LagunaDave — 3/4/2007 @ 3:19 am
Tracy:
From the concise OED:
faggot
/faggt/
• noun 1 Brit. a ball of seasoned chopped liver, baked or fried. 2 (US fagot) a bundle of sticks bound together as fuel. 3 N. Amer. informal, derogatory a male homosexual.
— DERIVATIVES faggoty adjective.
— ORIGIN Old French fagot, from Greek phakelos ‘bundle’.
How did the US interpretation end up so far from the original wording?
Comment by davod — 3/4/2007 @ 4:52 am
Expected hit from a liberal silky pony supporter.
Tracy: It’s amazing what people do with a word isn’t it? NK’s remark was the best to go with.
It seems that people are in NEED of being offended by something, so they jump on what they can.
Comment by Lord Nazh — 3/4/2007 @ 5:26 am
as a coulter fan i was disappointed in ann’s joke gone badly. what will work at a college campus talk will not at a serious policy gathering like cpac. ann is funny, brilliant and i enjoy reading her commentary but bomb throwing at events like cpac convention are wrong.
Comment by james conrad — 3/4/2007 @ 5:39 am
Wow! Patterico quoted me! I’ve made it to the big time.
Seriously, though. I used to defend Ann’s over-the-top rhetoric as just a rightwing attempt to combat leftist aggressiveness. But even I’ve pretty much stopped reading or agreeing with Ann (I couldn’t even finish reading Godless). It’s just not funny anymore and it is counterproductive. Witness what the moonbatosphere is saying today: “Right wingers get upset about four letter words but then Ann Coulter uses a homosexual slur!” It’s just ridiculous to end up defending that sort of stupidity, especially from someone who used to be clever.
Comment by sharon — 3/4/2007 @ 6:18 am
Criticizing Ann Coulter for being over the top is kind of like criticizing water for being wet. Hyperbole is what she does. And if she’d said this in one of her appearances at, say, a college campus, I wouldn’t care.
But she was speaking at CPAC. She should have had the maturity to realize she would be speaking for the organization, and she didn’t. She screwed up royally here.
As Bryan Preston put it on Hot Air, it’s all about Ann, and that’s the problem.
Comment by rightwingprof — 3/4/2007 @ 6:33 am
Lord N said:
“Calling Edwards a ‘faggot’, ‘Breck Girl’, ‘Silky Pony, effiminate or any other WORD that does and can mean a feminine wimp of a man MEANS the same thing no matter what WORD is used.
“I’ve lived 3 and a half decades (not long to some) and this word (’faggot’) has ALWAYS meant ’sissy-boy’ or someone who is unmanly.
“…she was making fun of his primpness and feminity(sp) but she used a word that seems to not pass the PC test.”
So what’s offensive about “faggot” is not that it is a derogatory term to describe homosexual men, many of whom heard that term just before getting their lights punched out for the crime of being gay, but it’s that it means someone is feminine, womanly, and a sissy?
You are unbelievable. Why is being compared to a “woman” the worst thing you can think of? Misogyny, much? And since when do you get to define what “faggot” means, Mr. 35-year-old with the Wisdom of Solomon?
And by the way, it’s IMPLIED, not inferred.
Comment by tinfoil hattie — 3/4/2007 @ 8:20 am
Doc Rampage: re your comment ‘…until someone can explain to me why “faggot” is out of bounds but leftist terms of contempt for conservatives and Christians are not.’ Can you provide more detail about precisely which “leftist terms of contempt for conservatives and Christians” you have in mind?
Comment by McJohn — 3/4/2007 @ 8:59 am
Last I checked it’s not a term of endearment.
Comment by Tracy — 3/4/2007 @ 9:07 am
Lord N wrote:
In my 5.38685 decades, I’ve seen “faggot” defined as both a bundle of sticks (normally as kindling) and as a cigarette. Perhaps the lovely Miss Coulter meant the bundle of kindling, since his campaign is on fire, or was making a reference to his home state being part of Tobacco Road.
Yeah, that’s it!
Comment by Dana — 3/4/2007 @ 9:44 am
Thanks, Ann…
P.S.–I’ve made it to the big time. Patterico quoted me in his latest post on Ann. “Ann, when you’ve lost sharon, you’ve lost your base. Trust me on this.”
That’s completely correct. It’s time for Ann to take a …
Trackback by Common Sense Political Thought — 3/4/2007 @ 9:48 am
Dana: faggot became a term for homosexual as a result of homosexuals being burnt at the stake by members of one of the more enlightened religions. Perhaps if CAIR’s constituency gets its way the term will change to something referring to falling walls or beheadings.
Another comment and shameless blogplug.
Comment by the friendly grizzly — 3/4/2007 @ 10:00 am
So she comes off hard at times. What are we to do?
Should attacks be replied to with meekness and smiles? Wimps finish last.
Our enemies play dirty and get away with it.
Ir we lob a hardball in their direction there is Hell to pay. We need more street-fighters.
Chaucer summed it up with: “Nigh and sly beats fair and square who isn’t there”
Comment by Arthur Downs — 3/4/2007 @ 10:14 am
I’ve been referring to the nitpicking over whether she did or didn’t call him a faggot to be “Clintonian parsing,” but actually a more up-to-date reference would be “Marcottian.” I didn’t buy it when Marcotte’s supporters tried to explain why she’s not a vicious loony, and I’m not buying it this time either.
P.S. Patterico, you bed-wettin’ liberal you!
Comment by Jim Treacher — 3/4/2007 @ 10:28 am
I have no problems with fighting dirty. None at all…
But to fight dirty against Liberals as a whole (there are exceptions, mind you, but they are very few) is to simply tell the truth. Use fact and honestly, and eshew rhetoric, dogma and lies.
We don’t need to wallow in their own filth, and that’s what my lovely, lovely Ann did…
Damnit Ann, why do you have to make it so HARD?
Comment by Scott Jacobs — 3/4/2007 @ 10:32 am
Well it was the pretty boy Edwards himself who outted VP Cheneys daughter on national TV in a feeble attempt to alienate religious republicans..What a dope..most conservatives I know LOVE Lesbians…and I hope when his wife’s cancer comes back he gets a big settlement in the malpractice suit…What a shyster.
Comment by Frank Drackman — 3/4/2007 @ 11:07 am
Never been here before–I’m a Leftist and don’t regard that as an epithet. I trust you will hear this anyway; “Thank you” for condemning this. It gives me the first hope I can remember that, at some future point, we may speak and listen to one another with civility, no matter how differently we see the world.
Thanks again. I’m out.
Comment by johnieb — 3/4/2007 @ 11:07 am
Greetings again,
Ann Coulter is in hot water with the left, again, or still! What is new? Are the same people condeming Ms. Coulter for her remark going to condemn Bill Maher for saying it was a waste of a bomb because VP Cheney lived? Or did Maher repeat it? It doesn’t matter because neither did he condemn it.
For the record I do disagree with Ms. Coulter. I believe her and several others who make their living in comedy go to far, left or right. I don’t call for civility in politics. Let’s face it, that is the last thing to have any chance of survival, but mere respect of others is a good idea. Coulter, Moore, Maher and others have all gone beyond any civilised line. To hear those of my beliefs defend Coulter sickens me, and embarasses those of my political beliefs.
richard
Comment by richard — 3/4/2007 @ 11:18 am
I think if anything positive comes out of this whole debacle with Coulter it could be this: After losing badly in 06, the Republicans get over their anger and begin the search for attracting voters back to the fold. Recognition that bombastic comments, so long the hallmark of the far left, have become part of the blogs on the right, the adults stepped in and reminded everyone that it is time to concentrate on showing through words and deeds that the Republicans are the party voters should want to have as their elected representatives.
Comment by Moderate Hick — 3/4/2007 @ 11:33 am
As someone who is considerably to the left of the Democratic party, I am glad to see those who are genuinely disgusted by AC. Both the right and the left have their publicity hungry idiots, who do a disservice not only to their “side” but to humanity in general.
Comment by Marina — 3/4/2007 @ 11:47 am
Coulter isn’t the only one who’s making Republicans look bad these days.
Comment by Psyberian — 3/4/2007 @ 12:47 pm
.
That would make more sense if her only venue were a personal blog, but she was honored with an invitation to speak at CPAC, to represent the conservative position. The reason that she tarnishes people on the right (the reason that is even possible for the left to use episodes like this) is that the right chooses her to speak for them by paying her to present at an important event like this. She is rewarded enormously for her behavior, that’s why she can be used this way…
Comment by ITD — 3/4/2007 @ 12:50 pm
I’ll wait till the DNC’s next convention to refute this one…
Though your winter conferance sure did raise my eyebrows by having an America and Jew hating Imam give the opening prayer…
I’ll never appologize for liking Ann. I’m more smitten with her than is probably healthy, but even I can see that this was a booboo… A big one…
But, tyhanks to the left, she can just say it was a poorly worded joke, and all will be forgiven…
I mean, it works for everyone else, right?
Comment by Scott Jacobs — 3/4/2007 @ 1:16 pm
“Ann Coulter used a slur at a major conservative conference knowing it would make it harder for Republicans to win the war effort.”
O.K.: I’ll bite. How could Coulter’s remark have any bearing whatsoever on the war effort?
Comment by Federal Dog — 3/4/2007 @ 1:44 pm
Come on people. It was in bad taste. I agree. Does she really deserve to be excommunicated for it? I don’t think so.
The vitriol from the Left is orders of magnitude worse than Ann’s rhetoric. And she actually uses logic in her arguments.
Please, no circular firing squads. Go shoot a loony lefty. Figuratively speaking.
An Ann Fan
Comment by jb — 3/4/2007 @ 2:26 pm
[...] Several of the conservative sites I usually read are turning into whining, scolding harpies. Since when do real conservatives subscribe to the PC regimen demanding that no one be offended by anything, ever? So Ann Coulter told a lame joke. OMG! I hope that tender, sensitive flower Edwards recovers from the severe trauma of being called a faggot, I really do. I know that would be enough to shatter my fragile ego forever - well, at least make me cry and feel bad, and question my manhood. I’m already steeling myself for the inevitable onslaught of criticism for our occasional use of homo or faggot. I can just imagine how Ace will feel when y’all turn your wrath on him. Whattaya mean that’s different? How? Because his jokes are better? [...]
Pingback by Is it something in the water? | Cold Fury — 3/4/2007 @ 2:34 pm
I read that the response to the joke was more enthusiastic than the standing ovation that Romney received from the crowd! Ann Coulter *is* the face of contemporary conservatism - ugly, hateful and mean.
Comment by The Liberal Avenger — 3/4/2007 @ 3:14 pm
Lord Nahz said:Calling Edwards a “faggot”, “Breck Girl”, “Silky Pony”, effiminate or any other WORD that does and can mean a feminine wimp of a man MEANS the same thing no matter what WORD is used.
That Obama, he’s one smart nigger!
What? I just said he was smart! How can you be offended?
Therefore, I disagree with you. Words DO matter. Choose them carefully. Ann didn’t. I still love her though.
Comment by Kevin — 3/4/2007 @ 3:28 pm
O.K.: I’ll bite. How could Coulter’s remark have any bearing whatsoever on the war effort?
If it makes us less likely to take the presidency, then a Dem could get in and pull out prematurely.
If it lowers people’s opinions of Republicans, it gives the Dems in Congress a freer hand to push for reductions, cuts and the rest of their slow bleed strategy.
Comment by Daryl Herbert — 3/4/2007 @ 3:44 pm
Words DO matter. Choose them carefully. Ann didn’t.
I think she chose very carefully, and very poorly.
Comment by Daryl Herbert — 3/4/2007 @ 3:48 pm
“Ann Coulter *is* the face of contemporary conservatism - ugly, hateful and mean.”
Well, what can you do about a bunch of godbags who aren’t sorry Vice President Cheney wasn’t blown up? BTW: Did you know that his daughter is a lesbian?
Comment by nk — 3/4/2007 @ 4:03 pm
*applauds nk*
LA’s idiocy would be funny if it weren’t so hypocritical…
Seriously LA… were your parents related, or is this just some sort of act to lull us in a false sense of security, and then you strike with wit, charm, and intelligence?
Your side cries out for the VP’s violent death (and several other Conservitives), then praises and/or defends those who say it…
And you expect us to take you seriously? Come on me. Yeah, my lady Ann is prone to frequent verbal oops’s. You know what? If you take ALL the ones from my Ann, and compare them to the pile your side has leveled…
Forget it… You’re to blind to see any similarities between Marcotte, Kerry, Obama, etc., you’re just plain blind.
All Ann has to do is just say “Look, it was supposed to be a joke. It just came out wrong. I mis-spoke is all. It’s not my fault if you didn’t get it.” and the likeness is complete…
And honestly, I fuly understand how the gay community could be offended by what Ann said… If I was gay, I’d be mad about being likened to Edwards too…
Oh, and LA…
manshake manshake manshake
Troll Blather Troll Blather Troll Blather
Troll Blather Troll Blather Troll Blather
Troll Blather Troll Blather Troll Blather
Comment by Scott Jacobs — 3/4/2007 @ 4:16 pm
Ann Coulter chose to say what she said and where she said it for a reason. It sells books. It keeps her in the spotlight. It would, and did, cause controversy. So what if it hurts the Right. So what if it loses moderate votes. The important swing votes. She still gets cheered by her hard core fans- whose votes and $$$ are in the bag anyway. CPAC can sell her next book for her by inviting her back next year.
Oh, by the way, Does anyone know if anything else happened at CPAC? Wasn’t the VP there or something? Never mind. I gotta go to Anne’s website.
Comment by capekicks — 3/4/2007 @ 4:24 pm
Seems Ill have to bow out to superior knowledge here. Since everyone here knows what she meant and knows she meant to disparage the entire gay community.
Funny how there’s this whole post on Silky Pony’s hurt feelings (and Ann’s words thereof) and yet nothing on Maher’s comments via the VP.
And Kevin, seriously bro, words do indeed matter and that word doesn’t have an alternative meaning that I’ve lived with, this one does. And since nitpicking seems to be the norm on here, the name is NAZH not nahz. Yes that was petty, but it was an inferred pettiness and not implied.
Comment by Lord Nazh — 3/4/2007 @ 4:42 pm
LA wrote:
So, LA comes to Patterico’s site, sees a posting with many references to conservative sites condemning the lovely Miss Coulter’s language, and immediately says that we’re all lying about this, and that we are inextricably represented by Miss Coulter.
Would this be the same LA who thought it unfair for conservatives to try to tie Amanda marcotte’s prose to John Edwards?
Comment by Dana — 3/4/2007 @ 5:44 pm
Dana–the sin of which you should be accusing LA is plagiarism; he was paraphrasing Andrew Sullivan. UNATTRIBUTED. The only important addition LA made was the final adjectival trio.
This is what AS wrote in a post of 2 March 07:
When you see her in such a context, you realize that she truly represents the heart and soul of contemporary conservative activism, especially among the young.The standing ovation for Romney was nothing like the eruption of enthusiasm that greeted her…That’s the new standard. She is the new Republicanism. The sooner people recognize this, the better.
jb wrote:The vitriol from the Left is orders of magnitude worse than Ann’s rhetoric. And she actually uses logic in her arguments.
I don’t want to know what Leftist writers you’ve been reading. From the incipit to the colophon, Ann Coulter’s writing is full of vitriol. And her arguments are not full of logic. They are full of–well, I was going to make a reference to bovine excrement, but I won’t. I’ll just say they are full of overblown rhetoric. If she happens to use a fact, it is not as supporting information for her thesis, but as a club to whack over the head of whatever she wants to attack that day.
It’s wrong to compare her to Maher, Franken and Moore. They are professional entertainers who choose political as their subject, and admit it openly. Coulter does not. She pretends to be a serious pundit. And plenty of people take her seriously as a pundit. Professional comics make outrageous statements all the time. That is part of their job, and there is a built in expectation on the part of such people that buffers them–that allows us to think they were making a statement for the effect, and not because they actually believe it. That buffer effect is not available to Coulter because she poses as a pundit.
Comment by kishnevi — 3/4/2007 @ 7:42 pm
Well,
The excessive handwringing can stop now.
Yes is was *gasp* insensitive
Also it was *gasp* uncalled for
So was the Jersey girls comments - it was the end of the world….
Until strangely - it turned out to be true
Edwards lived a pious live, one of dignity, core values, he never told a lie, he never organized and approved of fund raisers that had celebs wondering about gang raping the bush twins or outing the Cheneys, he was *totally* above that.
Maybe she was toughening up the room.
Yep Faggot, terrible word, just terrible
we can lament all we want when in 2009 we are filling up our “greenmobiles” at the new national oil company or standing in line for mandatory physical exams at the new national health agency.
Maybe Ann, was saying that we need a drop down knockout fight to win back.
Patton was politically incorrect too
THANK GOD!
Comment by EricPWJohnson — 3/4/2007 @ 8:55 pm
I didn’t compare her to Maher, Franken, nor Moore… I compared her to Obama, Kerry, and Marcotte…
Though you are wrong. Moore pretends to be a serious pundit as well, and don’t you EVEN start lying to me and say he doesn’t.
The EXACT buffer should be extended to Ann that you all so willingly extend to Kerry, Obama, Marcotte and a slew of others.
PICK a god damn STANDARD and apply it to EVERYONE. How freaking hard IS that for you people? We’re ALL pissed off about what Ann said. We were pissed at Marcotte, and told that ‘it’s a joke man‘, and should get over it.
Kerry Obama insult every single man and woman in the millitary, and we’re told “it was a joke, dude. Don’t be so serious…”
If I, as a satirist or pure comedan, were to stand on a stage anywhere, or write in a popular blog, that ‘boy, wasn’t it a shame Pelosi’s plane didn’t just fucking crash on her way back to DC. That c**t…” I’d be strung up from the nearest tall tree by liberals and conservatives alike and rightly so. I’d be 100% in the wrong for saying it, and about 5 miles over the line of any sort of decency and good taste.
No, I don’t want her plan to crash, and the C word doesn’t apply to her (though I’ll admit to thinking ‘female dog’ on many occations, so sue me).
Even having not seen the part of her speech where she said the “joke” (I’m calling it that because ‘fucking travisty’ takes too long to type), and have only read it, I can tell you that it was supposed to be a joke.
Was it funny? Hell no it wasn’t. It wasn’t even on the same planet as “funny”. However, it’s clear from the context of it that it’s supposed to be a joke.
Ask the guy who played Cramer… Bad jokes happen, and usually infront of some sort of camera.
It is, however, outside of the allowed rules to use ONE SENTENCE of a speech to paint an ENTIRE school of thought as hateful homophobes. It’s a lie, and you all know it when you say it.
And I am, frankly, done condeming her FOR it. Countless times 99% of Republicans and Conservatives (not always the same thing) have denounced what she said, and they were fast with it. Imedeately we all stood up and said “yeah, that line? that was wrong. We don’t agree with her having said it.” You’ll note how fast it happened. Liberals gaff like that and it’s a day before someone’s hear the mumblings that it was unpopular, and THEN democrats step forward and say “gee, that wasn’t very nice, and if you don’t like it than I don’t like it”.
We’ve said she was wrong. A lot.
Get the fuck over it, god damnit. Next damn liberal that calls me a homophobe because of what Ann said is getting my freaking fist in their mouth for their troubles. I’m sick and tired of it.
If we aren’t allowed to label you based on what Marcotte says, you can’t keep on us for what Ann said. It’s pretty simple.
Comment by Scott Jacobs — 3/4/2007 @ 9:04 pm
Lord Nazh, now you are making fun of my dyslexia! You jerk!
j/k
Seriously though, I came away with the idea that she was poking fun at the ‘rehab solves all’ crowd, not at homosexuals.
Also, I assumed that her word for gay people was as offensive as the n-word is to black people (coming from white people, at least). If you know that to be untrue, I won’t argue. The word ‘faggot’ doesn’t come up much in every day life, so I’m no expert.
And I still love Ann Coulter.
Comment by Kevin — 3/4/2007 @ 11:04 pm
The EXACT buffer should be extended to Ann that you all so willingly extend to Kerry, Obama, Marcotte and a slew of others.
Fair.
1) Marcotte, I’m familiar with. She’s noisy and rude at times, but she isn’t antireligious. (Compare with, say, they guy at Pharyngula, who is.)
2) Obama, I’m assuming you’re referencing over the “wasted lives” comment. Amusing that you don’t include McCain in the list here, who said almost the exact same thing, and retracted in the same way.
3) Kerry. I don’t know what you’re referencing here. He said a lot of dumb things, not being the best speaker in the world. So I can’t respond to whatever you’re on about, but odds are, you’re right that he misspoke.
Now, there are two different issues. One is foot-in-mouth. Funny, sure, but Democrats don’t have a monopoly on those (listen to Bush much?), and in any case, don’t really matter from a policy point of view.
The second is carefully phrased statements, delivered to a crowd, in a forum. Arguably, Marcotte lands here. She carefully wrote what she did, and posted them. If that is so, then Couter’s remarks are no less careful - she (at least was — ?? ) a lawyer, and is paid a lot of money to speak, so one would think she’s careful. It is hard to believe she just goofed a line when she came out with the word, especially framed in an extended reference to other pop-culture goings on.
Finally, CPAC paid her to speak. They paid her last year to rant about ‘ragheads’. They know what they’re paying for. Mitt knew what he was implicitly aligning himself with. Next time someone calls for J. Random Democrat to not be on stage with Al Sharpton, please wake me when Romney distances himself from calls for poisoning SCOTUS Justices.
Comment by fishbane — 3/4/2007 @ 11:28 pm
Grumble. This whole discussion bores the hell out of me, but look: when someone calls a woman a whore, you don’t say that the person is expressing hatred for prostitutes. When someone calls a man a dog, you don’t say that the person is expressing hatred for canines. When someone calls a man a bastard, you don’t say that the person is expressing hatred for children born out of wedlock. So why is it when someone calls a man a fagot, you say that he is expressing hatred for gays?
This is just silly. “Fagot” is a verboten term for no other reason than that gays are a protected class of the left. It’s the same reason that offensive words referring to blacks or jews are forbidden, but not offensive words referring to whites or Christians. If this were just about offensive words, I would agree that we should discourage the use of offensive words. But this is about more than that, it’s about the left controlling the culture. People who are identified with the Republican party can be offended with impunity but for people who are identified with the Democrat party you have to walk on eggshells trying not to offend them.
This is cultural power politics, and you Republicans who are going along with it are helping your political foes.
Comment by Doc Rampage — 3/5/2007 @ 12:13 am
This is just silly. “Fagot” is a verboten term for no other reason than that gays are a protected class of the left
Here, I found this ‘g’, you might find a use for it. Wipe it off, first.
More generally, you might be surprised how many fag(g)ots are sympathetic to right-leaning politics. But please, keep pushing - you’ll be a minority limited to the South in no time (there, the accepted spelling is ‘faggit’. I know this because some good ole’ boys spraypainted it on my car when I lived in Tennessee. My preference for women notwithstanding, it was apparently funny for the same reason Dear Ann is funny.).
A certain strain of right wing politics is not happy unless it is in a victim role, and it goes seeking that. Sad, really, when you could have indies like my on boat (fiscal conservative), only to embarrass us with statements like this. Hint: when I was 10 or so, my mother taught me dinner table manners. If you’d like to eat with the grown ups, perhaps learning them would be a good idea. The big tent seems smaller, every day.
And yes, I curse, too. But I don’t make bullshit lists about it, especially not in a week wherein a leading political endorsement includes a word that, no matter how one spells it, is pretty obvious.
Comment by fishbane — 3/5/2007 @ 12:32 am
Oh dear! Ms. Coulter called a spade a spade and the weak kneed pseudo conservatives swooned in lock step…
Buck up folks unless you want to walk in the shadow of libtards by whining about something that is idiotic, “hate speech”…
Comment by juandos — 3/5/2007 @ 2:35 am
Kevin: It wasn’t mainly about you transposing the h and z (I get that alot…) but mainly the nitpicking that happened above and your post was the last I had read
Yes I took it as her making fun of Silky Pony AND the rehab crowd but didn’t really care either way. I don’t listen to Ann but I do like to argue.
Comment by Lord Nazh — 3/5/2007 @ 3:31 am
#65 wrote
As were any of Kerry’s, Obama’s, or Marcotte’s…
They got paid too… Exact same circumstances. Use the same standards you mealy-mouthed morons.
And for the record, the crap that comes from McCain’s mouth doesn’t count. He’s so far beneath my notice since the 2004 election (and even before) it’s not even funny…
Comment by Scott Jacobs — 3/5/2007 @ 4:51 am
Oh, and for the record, I was reffering to Kerry’s famous gaff over our stupid troops
Comment by Scott Jacobs — 3/5/2007 @ 5:14 am
[...] “Coulter Screams for Attention, Again - Losing Whatever Supporters She Still Had,” Patterico [...]
Pingback by newsroom-l.net :: Right Wing columnist: Coulter is the Britney Spears of the Right — 3/5/2007 @ 5:19 am
I hear the odds are 1-to-3 in Vegas right now on Coulter dropping the N-bomb if she gets to talk about Barak Obama at next year’s CPAC conference. And guessing how long she can get into her speech before uttering a new book-selling/daring/”Look at Me! Look at Me!” epithet could rival some NCAA office pools in popularity, since Ann wants the spotlight on herself as much as any of the Hollywood bad girls, so you know if CPAC or any other major conservative group gives her face time at a major meeting, it’s going to happen.
Comment by John — 3/5/2007 @ 6:43 am
An open letter to Ann Coulter. H/T Instapundit.
Comment by Stu707 — 3/5/2007 @ 7:03 am
For those who have taken the stance that Ann owes no apology, whine about what the extreme left says, and generally don’t want to budge I offer the following thoughts.
(1) If Ann truly cares about the principles in her books and lectures that have made her a wealthy woman why WOULDN’T she want to apologize and regroup in her approach? If she can’t then I think it is fair to see that her loyalty to the principles is secondary to the loyalty to her financial gain.
(2) If Ann truly wanted to see a conservative rebound in the house and senate why is it so hard for her to be a “team player”? In our everyday lives many of us (faceless readers and commenters) put principles before pride and certainly don’t talk that way around our children. Not because it will make us rich or to boast about our good parenting but because we KNOW it is the RIGHT thing to do.
(3) Just because the extremists of the democratic party say terrible things it should not justify rolling in the mud with them. We seem to forget that most Democrats are not of this mindset and simply lean left of center in their political beliefs. This doesn’t make them less patriotic than a proud Republican but their moderate outlook does mean they are willing to consider other viewpoints (Reagan Democrats, blue dog democrats).
I really believe that if the Republican party takes the high ground and strongly discourage the tactics and bombastic approach used by Coulter and some like her those Democrats I just described may take the initiative to take back their party from the minority of extremists. Our motives should be less about only being concerned about the potential vote but to encourage that thing all of us wax sentimental about; a time when civility was more the order of the day and the good of the country trumped a person’s political loyalties.
So I ask everyone - Is it not better to take the high road? Is there any good reason not to?
Comment by Moderate Hick — 3/5/2007 @ 11:34 am
All this chest beating and wearing a hair shirt because Coulter used the “F” word is just so much smoke and mirrors. And Howard Dean is sitting in his office laughing his ass off how he made the conservatives jump thorough the PC hoops.
One conservative blogger is urging everyone to let CNN, ABC and Fox know that they don’t think the networks should allow Coulter on their shows again. So what the hell is next? Ann Coulter book burnings in the town squares?
Has anyone here heard her entire speech? Or are you just falling lockstep to the left wing PC mantra because she dared to slam WHO? Was she referring to Edwards? Or maybe Austininte Amanda Marcotte? Anyone want to take a guess at Marcotte’s sexual proclivity?
Coulter made an off color remark. But to dig out the thumb screws for her is over the top. And to have Howard Dean call for every conservative in America to “denounce” Coulter is just so much bull. How about Dean denouncing the Democrats that stand on the podium with that traitorous woman, Cindy Sheehan? When Sheehan is talking about how she would like to go back in time and kill George Bush when he was a baby and Maxine Waters is standing next to her on the podium on the 16th, will we hear “denouncing” of those Democrat pols marching with Sheehan and every damn communist/marxist/muslim group in the nation? Don’t hold your breath.
Dean’s screeching is like the thief who gets robbed and then complains because someone stole all the stuff he stole from someone else.
If y’all can’t see what is happening here, I feel sorry for you. The party that makes insults of those on the opposite side of the aisle into an art form, is now demanding that we jump through our rears to appease them. Nice move, Howie. It worked.
Guess who thought Ann’s statement was funny? My Log Cabin Republican son who said that Edwards would make a good drag queen.
Get a grip, people. You’re being played by the PC left like a cheap fiddle.
Comment by retire05 — 3/5/2007 @ 4:10 pm
Scott, wasn’t you that regularly called her St. Ann on the I-S list?
Refer to my original comment (14). I saw the intended joke–in fact, viewed in retrospect, it’s rather better than most of her other attempts.
During the flow of comments up to my second comment, she had been compared to entertainers. For Kerry, Obama, and Marcotte, I hold no brief. But I will note that Kerry’s most celebrated gaffes were, unlike Coulter’s, unintentional. And unlike Coulter, Kerry and Obama do not spout hyperholic venom in almost every paragraph they utter.
But I voted for Badnarik. And given the major party choices now in the offing for 2008, I’m going to vote for the same party’s candidate, or not vote at all.
(The Jeffrey who is not Quick)
Comment by kishnevi — 3/5/2007 @ 6:22 pm
Nope… Never called her St Ann…
I think she’s pretty hawt, and would be understanding of my tendancy to yell at the TV during news shows (i don’t want to think about my blood pressure…), but she’s no saint.
Not by a long shot…
And you know what? That’s just fine by me…
Anyways… My problem with what’s going on with the left is, instead of comparing her to comedians, she’s being used to show what each and every one of us is like.
And that, frankly, pisses me off.
And then, it is ignored that she’s not the only person to have gotten behind a mic and say something less than polite and kind, and that there are indeed a vast number of Liberals who have done the same thing. The massive post string where the cry is “is a comedian, so his quote doesn’t count!!” has my head nearly exploding…
Comment by Scott Jacobs — 3/6/2007 @ 12:10 pm