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.You can watch the clip here and here.
Ann, of course, is the woman endlessly ranting about how debased our political discourse is and how it's all the Left's fault.
UPDATE: Howard Dean reacts:
There is no place in political discourse for this kind of hate-filled and bigoted comments. While Democrats and Republicans may disagree on the issues, we should all be able to agree that this kind of vile rhetoric is out of bounds. The American people want a serious, thoughtful debate of the issues. Republicans -- including the Republican presidential candidates who shared the podium with Ann Coulter today -- should denounce her hateful remarks.
UPDATE Part Deux: See the clip, hear the applause, experience the magic that is - COULTER:
14 comments:
Excuse me. She used the word "faggot" to illustrate one of those very issues. She did not call anyone a faggot.
She may well be hateful, but you could throw a dart at the filmography of her life and find something more offensive than THAT.
I was going to have a few comments on Ann Coulter, but it turns out you have to go into rehab if you use the word ‘cunt,’ so I — so kind of an impasse, can’t really talk about Coulter.
Republicans, if they are serious about reaching the people they lost in 2006, need to start distancing themselves from her. She's their Michael Moore.
Andrew Sullivan's point just about says it all. Love or loathe Moore (I leand towards the latter), he is a polarizing figure. She is even worse. So I say, let 'er rant! It can only help the Dems over the long haul.
You know what? Upon closer reading ... maybe I take that back. Gawd. Coulter!
So I look at the headline of your post. Ann Coulter. All the world to see. And I'm thinking one thing. Then I read your post. Absolutely no mention of nekkid pictures surfacing on the internet. And I was gravely disappointed.
At least when McIntire uses a headline like this, you get what you've got coming to you!
Oh, Admiral. You disappoint me.
Am I correct in inferring from your comment that you actually want to see naked pictures of Ann Coulter?
Have you no shame, sir?
Have you no decency?
The response of the Dems is yet another round of pathetic pandering to "mainstream" thought that just reinforces the marginalization of the gay community within our own party. Neither Edwards nor Dean actually contextualizes Coulter's f-bomb as homophobic. Edwards uses it to ask for more money without actually, alluding that its a (gasp) horrible thing to be compared to a faggot. Tell that to Andrew Anthos, a 72 year old man beaten to death with a pipe last week in Michigan. He was a faggot. Or the Jersey man beaten so badly he required 12 stitches because he wore pink pants. He, too, is a faggot.
I don't care about Ann Coulter's bigotry (yawn). I do care about the Democratic non-response to the real homophobia underlying the comment. But then again, that's just as predictable as Coulter being outrageous.
You think that Dean's use of "hate-filled and bigoted" didnn't mean homophobic?
Do you think he meant that Coulter was hateful because she called Edwards a bad word for gay when he isn't?
Dean is the guy who, as Governor of Vermont, had to wear a bulletproof vest for months after signing and promoting the nation's first civil unions bill.
pghlesbian;
with all due respect, while dean doesn't actually use the word "homophobic" to describe coulter's comments, he does call them "hate-filed" and "hateful" and "bigoted" and "out-of-bounds" and "vile".
that might not have been exactly what you were looking for, but it's hardly "pathetic pandering" nor can it really be called a "non-response," can it?
furthermore the e-mail sent out by david bonior to (as you wrote) "ask for more money" for the edwards campaign calls the comments "filth" and "a shameless display of bigotry" and "one of the worst moments in American politics" that he'd ever seen.
it's not surprising that a campaign would be asking for money, but again, that's hardly "pathetic pandering".
i would say they're in somewhat of a bind. they have to argue that it was the use of the word that was the offense, not necessarily the characterization.
how many activists (gay or otherwise) would protest if the edwards campaign was upset that he was called gay? why would they think that being called gay (in any form) is an insult?
I am a lesbian who does not think Howard Dean is a true friend to the LGBTQ community. I think he wants our money and our votes, but doesn't really care about our support. The 2006 DNC Annual Grassroots Report had not a single mention of gay outreach (unlike predecessors). He eliminted the DNC gay outreach post and then "reached out" the 700 Club, a bastion of anti-gay hate rhetoric.
As long as mainstream Dems pander to the rightwing with talk about "states rights" on gay marriage and hide behind civil unions, I'm not going to be okay with that. I'm not going to be okay with second class citizenship.
On this issue, I think Edwards and Dean stuck with superficial condemnations of Coulter's language and failed to take the issue to a meaningful levels BECAUSE its about a gay slur. If it were a racial slur, the gloves would be off.
So, yes, anonymous I do think this is an extension of the pathetic pandering the Dems have been dishing out on gay issues. Ann Coulter is an easy target to get themselves wound up into a hissy about.
And, yes, Maria I do think Howard Dean is a weak ally. I got knocked around last year by local gay Democrats for not playing ball with Uncle Howard, but there's a world of difference between Vermont and the national arena.
Why didn't either camp use the word homophobia? Why didn't either camp use the terms gay and lesbian or (gasp) transgender? Could it be they want to have their cake and eat it too - let's not call 'em faggots but we don't exactly want 'em dating our sons do we?
In Ann's Defense, she does have a bigger Adam's apple than most of the CPAC audience.
At 11:39 PM, Terry said...
I was going to have a few comments on Ann Coulter, but it turns out you have to go into rehab if you use the word ‘cunt,’ so I — so kind of an impasse, can’t really talk about Coulter."
Sort of the typical liberal nonresponse. When you can't debate someone hurl an insult or two?
Yes! Why do we liberals have to be such potty mouths?
Why can't we learn to debate in the same genteel way that Coulter does?
For example:
"My only regret with Timothy McVeigh is he did not go to the New York Times building."
- Ann Coulter, New York Observer, 08-26-02
"We need to execute people like John Walker in order to physically intimidate liberals, by making them realize that they can be killed, too. Otherwise, they will turn out to be outright traitors."
- Ann Coulter, at the Conservative Political Action Conference, 02-26-02
And at last year's CPAC's meeting:
A young woman asked Coulter to describe the most difficult ethical decision she ever made. "There was one time I had a shot at Bill Clinton," Coulter said.
See! No vulgar or rude, naughty words used!
From now on PLEASE try to follow the typical Right Wing response and simply threaten to kill someone instead of using those awful potty words.
That's the moral way to have a debate!
Michael, you silly man, all Terry did was take Ann's exact comment and substitute a different objectionable word for the one she used. Careful when these things go sailing over your head.
Post a Comment