Thanks, Ann; Update: Audio added; Update: Video added
posted at 4:27 pm on March 2, 2007 by Bryan
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
Ann Coulter is speaking at CPAC as I write. As is typical, she gave a brief speech full of her usual witticisms, including a few brilliant attacks on Al Gore’s green hypocrisy. All was good. Untill the last few seconds, when she launched into a joke about John Edwards.
Here’s what she said.
“I’d say something about John Edwards, but if you say ‘faggot’ you have to go to rehab.”
I’m no fan of John Edwards, but that’s just a stupid joke. It’s over the line. The laughter it generated across the room was more than a little annoying.
Last year it was “raghead.” This year it’s calling John Edwards a “faggot.” Two years in a row, Coulter has finished up an otherwise sharp CPAC routine with an obnoxious slur that liberals will fling at conservatives for years to come.
Thanks, Ann.
—
So what else is going on?
A lot. We interviewed a couple of presidential candidates. We asked a hard-hitting question of some of the ladies here at CPAC. I signed my first, and likely last, autograph. And we (well, Michelle) danced a revolution.
Update (AP): Sean Hackbarth has audio of Coulter.
Update (AP): Howard Dean wants the GOP candidates to formally denounce what Coulter said.
Update (AP): Here’s the video.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 Next »
CCRWM you know it. When’s the last time you heard anything out of the Jersey Girls?
- The Cat
MirCat on March 3, 2007 at 12:59 AM
Jen the Neocon on March 3, 2007 at 1:41 AM
Ann’s extremism dictates where the center of the political spectrum is.
She’s smart, the rest of us are dumb.
The center is defined by the extremes and for years the left has skewed the center to the left because of their off the charts extremism. With Ann in there, the center shifts dramatically to the right. Ergo, making the loony left that much farther away from center.
Thanks to Rush, Ann and others for bringing the center back to where it should be.
csdeven on March 3, 2007 at 2:34 AM
The fact that liberals will intentionally become “offended” at anything said negatively about them doesn’t mean we should allow them that privilege. Conservatives are daily demonized, both with explicit words and with implicit cultural innuendos, yet all we have to do is say “boo!” about a liberal and suddenly it’s “over the line”.
It’s like the disastrous “New Tone”, which imparts to the Left a respect they have no intention of deserving or reciprocating, inducing a fear about saying the truth about who they are and what they are trying to do. I see no reason why a harmless “faggot” joke (a joke, not an accusation) can’t be dealt with by the Left (aren’t these the people who produce/script/watch Will and Grace?). Their “sensitivity” is all an act, anyway. The Right has talked itself into walking on eggshells, and I think it’s refreshing that Ann Coulter doesn’t.
Halley on March 3, 2007 at 2:36 AM
I am neither upset at Coulter’s language nor am I willing to condemn her for it. This does not mean that I agree with her choice of words, but simply that I am not going to ally myself with the liberals and Democrats and go after her over an issue of political correctness.
I’ve read every comment here, some of which are compelling and others less so, and my conclusion is that as long as the left calls Bush “Hitler” and the rest of us “Nazis” and as long as the left REVELS in calling for the death of Cheney or Bush, and as long as Howard Dean stands by his “I hate Republicans” words, I don’t give a flying f*ck what Ann or anybody else says about Edwards, the Democrats, or liberals. I shed no tears over what Coulter said.
And here’s why.
Point 1: The Democrats destroyed civility more than a decade ago, and they continue to ground decent dialog into the mud every chance they get. Yes, there are exceptions, but the hate-filled messages of Rosie and Joy Behar, and the thoughts of Kos (”Screw them”) are common fodder and part of the linga franca used by the Democrats today.
Point 2: Conservatives are not engaged in a game of bean bag with the left. The left, using tactics from the playbooks Antonia Gramsci and Herbert Marcuse has engaged us in a war of extermination. Not against Al Qaeda, but against us and with the intent to destroy conservative and Republican thought for all time.
It is what they always do when they finally achieve supreme power. Ask the Cambodians. Ask the South Vietnamese. Ask the Cubans, and the Ukrainians and the Chinese survivors of the Great Cultural Revolution.
Point 3: There was a time when certain military leaders rejected intercepting and decoding enemy communications. Something about “gentlemen don’t read other people’s mail.”
When some of you say we should hold the higher ground, you are sounding just like those old fools. I am in favor of civil discussion, but THEY, our enemies, DO NOT WANT TO PLAY THAT GAME. And like a chess-master responding to an opening, we either beat them at it or we should resign and quit now.
Our political enemies have made the politics of personal destruction their weapon of choice. They have made the smear, the innuendo, the carefully timed leaks, and the outright lie their method of operation. And they continually get away with it, with the help of their friends in the media. Or have you forgotten the carefully timed campaign concerning racy emails sent to pages by a Republican.
We cannot hold the “high ground” with the left and the Democrats because THEY have no restraints.
None. Nada.
And we are in a war here, ladies and gentlemen. Not just against Al Qaeda and Isamofascism, but against America’s leftwing, who sides with Al Qaeda because the “enemy of my enemy is my friend.”
I would not have used that word. Because that is not who I am. But I recognize that in order to beat them, we have to play their game well enough to make it our game. If that takes someone choosing to use the word “faggot” to describe a Democrat, then so be it, the act is done.
There comes a time when our side HAS to use what has been euphemistically called “The Chicago Way.”
“He pulls a knife on you, you pull a gun on him. He sends one of yours to the hospital, you send one of his to the morgue. That’s the Chicago Way.” Sean Connery to Kevin Costner (playing Eliot Ness) in “The Untouchables.”
Rahm Emanuel, the guy who architected the House victory for the Democrats, and who used to be Clinton’s “kneecapper” when he worked out of the White House, comes from Chicago.
Do you get the picture yet?
Does anybody believe that he, or Schumer, or Hillary gives a damn about “civility?” Winning, by any means necessary, is the ONLY thing that counts with these people.
Give Coulter a pass and STOP doing the Democrat’s work for them. If they don’t like what she said, they can do their own pissing and moaning. You don’t have to help them.
If you find her words offensive, consider sending her a letter or an email, DO NOT PUBLICLLY TAKE THEIR SIDE by publicly attacking her.
My 25 cents.
georgej on March 3, 2007 at 2:54 AM
You do have a point. Republicans have been “taking the high road” and have been getting their butts kicked. It is frustrating watching Republicans take the fall for something stupid (DeLay), while Democrats just keep on going like nothing ever happened (Jefferson). There are countless other examples, but it’s 3:30 am…
I’d rather see us fight back more often, myself, maybe not so much with name-calling, but we do need to stop eating our own. The Dems are pretty good at circling the wagons, I don’t know what the hell the GOP is doing sometimes.
I think this is also reflected in Congressional voting – how many Democrats break ranks compared to Republicans? I mean a RINO is well known, but how many times have you heard DINO being tossed around?
reaganaut on March 3, 2007 at 3:35 AM
You also have Hillary’s (apparent) affinity for Alinsky.
reaganaut on March 3, 2007 at 3:43 AM
Looks pretty faggot in here
Ropera on March 3, 2007 at 4:24 AM
and here
Ropera on March 3, 2007 at 4:27 AM
and also here
Ropera on March 3, 2007 at 4:29 AM
Hey! it is not my fault!
Ropera on March 3, 2007 at 4:31 AM
Blame Google!
Ropera on March 3, 2007 at 4:32 AM
Wow, I’ve learned a lot here:
1. Bryan is secretly a liberal, and has bought into their PC “don’t use slurs” brainwashing.
2. The word “faggot” is not an offensive term used to refer to a homosexual. It just means “wimp.”
3. John Edwards is a faggot, but not a homosexual.
4. John Edwards is a faggot and a homosexual.
5. “Raghead” also isn’t an offensive term.
6. If you object when people use slurs, you’re advocating censorship.
I’ve also learned a formula:
1. Bryan posts about a conservative using an offensive term.
2. Certain Hot Air commenters proceed to use the offensive term repeatedly.
3. Certain Hot Air commenters argue that the term actually isn’t offensive.
The only thing left for you to do is use the offensive word in question to refer to Bryan’s family, and we’ll have come full circle.
Mark Jaquith on March 3, 2007 at 4:37 AM
Mark Jaquith: “Wow, I’ve learned a lot here…”
Nope, I don’t think you have.
georgej on March 3, 2007 at 5:04 AM
Well, ok. yeah maybe Ann should apologize. To homosexuals, for suggesting John Edwards is one of them.
That is pretty insulting.
Wind Rider on March 3, 2007 at 6:20 AM
Ha!
Savage on March 3, 2007 at 6:52 AM
Im cleaning coffee off my monitor… LMAO
Viper1 on March 3, 2007 at 6:54 AM
Spoke truth to face powder, that’s what she did. Annie has been a very bad girl, and I wish our cause had 100 more like her.
dhimwit on March 3, 2007 at 6:56 AM
Aw, c’mon people…Annie is just voicing what 99.9% of the commentors on this site have been thinking all along, me included…the only difference being, she has the guts to say it in public and damn the PC police…Annie is ready, willing and able to get down and fight dirty with the other side and sometimes doesn’t have the back-up of the rest of us…………like now.
DoctorDentons on March 3, 2007 at 7:01 AM
OK, I’ll bite. Bryan’s family are a bunch of flaming liberals.
Geez, I hope no one finds out I used the f-word on my blog last month.
Revealed! Fags make boys impotent!
saint kansas on March 3, 2007 at 7:26 AM
Case closed :)
Lord Nazh on March 3, 2007 at 8:12 AM
She has done a lot of damage. What was supposed to be a revival and an ironing out of difference is now just Ann Coulter and her wanting attention. All the good that came out of this conference is gone. MSM will mention this forever. SHE is rude offenseive and disgusting. There is no need to insult someone like that. Get lost Ann…it is a long time coming.
tomas on March 3, 2007 at 8:13 AM
The Fa.. uhhh.. Edwards camp is cashing in already LOL! Sorry if this has been posted already.
https://johnedwards.com/action/contribute/coulter
GoodBoy on March 3, 2007 at 8:19 AM
So Ann says she’d call Edwards a faggot, except she’d have to go to rehab.
Joy Behar call the Bush administration “murderers and liars” without any rehab qualifier.
If the moronic Joy Behar gets to invoke her “free speech” then Ann Coulter does as well.
darwin on March 3, 2007 at 8:23 AM
Heh
BacaDog on March 3, 2007 at 8:39 AM
Joy wasn’t invited to speak for democrats
tomas on March 3, 2007 at 8:50 AM
First of all, that’s all well and good but you don’t see Rosie being invited to speak at Democrat conventions (that I know of). So I don’t see where all the Rosie comparisons are coming from.
Secondly, to all those saying that the rehab situation really existed, so what? Ann wasn’t just making a joke referring to that. She was calling Edwards a “faggot” if you look at the “joke” in context. So don’t try to let her weasel out of it by saying it was just a reference to another situation. It was a stupid thing to say and gives the left more ammo against the Republicans. And judging from the amount of laughter in the room at her “joke”, rightly so.
Benaiah on March 3, 2007 at 8:53 AM
And there it is – the bottom line:
They do it – so we should.
They sink to that level. Why can’t we?
There is no longer any discernable difference between conservatives and liberals. Zero. Well, except they’re supposed to be vulgar and infantile; we’re supposed to be mature and rational.
So I guess conservatives are just the bigger hypocrites. Liberals don’t expect more of themselves – but we do.
And then we behave like this.
The fact that so many of you refer to maturity and intelligence as “prudish” or “PC” or “fascist”(!) or (gag) “liberal” is something many of you will probably be embarrassed about when you figure it out.
Or maybe you have neither the brains nor the maturity to even understand the point.
The only thing I know with absolute certainty is that what you are NOT is conservative. Period.
You are exactly what you hate.
——————
Professor Blather on March 3, 2007 at 8:54 AM
Granting, only for the sake of argument, that Ann was wrong to use that word, or use that forum for it, consider this:
If your sister passes gas in church, do you make a spectacle of it? Do you march her before the congregation, fanning the air behind her… or do you try to minimize the matter until it goes away?
petefrt on March 3, 2007 at 9:03 AM
She is not a politician. She should not apologize to anyone, nor should any conservative politicians apologize because of her. she is on no one’s political staff. She is a commentator. period.
pullingmyhairout on March 3, 2007 at 9:10 AM
I just giggled.
GoodBoy on March 3, 2007 at 9:10 AM
Whether we condone it or not, we play into their hands when we eat our own over it.
petefrt on March 3, 2007 at 9:18 AM
Prof. Blather: Amen. You said what I wanted to say next more eloquently than I ever could hope to say. Thank you.
Petefrt: interesting comparison, but this situation is much more offensive than simply passing gas. A more accurate comparison might be the following…
Sister, who has an annoying habit of shooting off her mouth like a cannon at inopportune times, is in church with you. You’ve ignored her in the past, but, this time, while the pastor is giving his sermon, she stands up and starts shouting that the pastor is a pervert.
Now what do you do with her? Doing nothing gives credit to her words. Doing something gives her words more attention, too. See, that’s the genius of the situation here: Ann surely knows this!
I say that we give her the attention she wants, but make sure that the attention is negative enough that she stays seated next time. For that to happen, it’s got to be quite a negative reaction, huh? Yet, for that reaction to have any credibility of its own, it CANNOT sink to her own level. That’s what Blather, Baldilocks, and I have been trying to say.
flutejpl on March 3, 2007 at 9:23 AM
If I believed that Ann was being crude for the sake of crudeness, then I’d agree with those whom are deriding her for this comment. She’d be no better than a Rosie or a Joy, because they are foul for the SAKE of foulness. Ann’s remarks were well thought out, biting, and dead on! You must read what she says like they are parables.
Those who have ears, let them hear!!
There’s a lot of talk how Ann makes conservatives look bad. BS!! The fact that you don’t get what she is doing makes conservatives look bad. Ignorance is a bane in the conservative movement, because ignorance is the hallmark of the liberal movement.
Get with it people. Use your brains and stop processing behavior like moonbat liberals. Liberals celebrate shallowness, NOT conservatives!
csdeven on March 3, 2007 at 9:40 AM
I respect everyone who chooses to take the higher road. I would hope to be included among them.
But I understand this is not a tea party with these Gramscians, but a fight to the death. Our army needs all kinds of soldiers to win this war, and can ill afford to savage our own over a matter largely of style.
petefrt on March 3, 2007 at 9:41 AM
IMO, she said what she said to get the expected reaction from the left, and they came through with flying colors. I wouldn’t have expected any reaction other than the one Bryan gave. Byran walks the walk. Even during his scolding of her, he remains civil.
Ann directed the comment to Edwards, who hired 2 biggoted bloggers. When we demanded he demounce them, and fire them, he wouldn’t..instead he put on a show and made excuses…The left (for the most part) embraced him and there was certainly no condemnation from Howard Dean over those two literary thugs. Ann decided to show the hypocricy of the left, and she more than succeeded!
It was an ugly, stupid comment, but the lesson has been lost on the ignorance of the listener.
Pam on March 3, 2007 at 9:54 AM
Yes, but to complete the analogy, I’d add that the pastor has in the past from the pulpit called her a Nazi, a bitch, a transsexual, a racist, ad nauseum. Can anyone say lose/lose situation?
Ann Coulter could have shown up, said “I love you all and wish you world peace” and walked out, and the Left would still say she was “spewing hatred.” “New tone,” anyone? Yeah, that worked, Herr Bushitler.
I wouldn’t call what she said funny, but am I more offended at (1) the use of the word itself, or (2) that I’m going to have to hear about it now everytime I debate a liberal? I’m already outing myself as a Nazi fascist bigot just by mentioning that I listen to Rush.
Yes, it was a lame joke and a dumb thing to say. Me, I’d rather have seen Thomas “Uncle Tom” Sowell or Theodore Dalrymple or some other fascist godbag at the podium. You know, someone whose intellect the Left respects.
saint kansas on March 3, 2007 at 9:54 AM
You’ve got to admit that the Professor nailed it when he came up with his screen name.
there it is on March 3, 2007 at 9:57 AM
Speaking of hurting the CPAC conference and taking the ‘high road’, is there any reason you chose to blogg instead of civility to approach Ann Coulter with personal egregious distaste of her humor? Just curious, because I don’t see how this helps.
mimi on March 3, 2007 at 10:08 AM
Persuasive criticism differentiates between style and principles, form and function.
The left trades in confusing the two, and we’d do well not to fall for it.
petefrt on March 3, 2007 at 10:12 AM
They do it – so we should.
They sink to that level. Why can’t we?
Professor Blather on March 3, 2007 at 8:54 AM
Wow, we happen to be talking about Ann Coulter here not fighting dirty in WWF Smack Down!
mimi on March 3, 2007 at 10:29 AM
I enjoy her no holds barred, shoot from the hip attitude! She goes for the shock value to make people stand up and listen. A few years ago I worked with a girl who was a student teacher at the college here in town, she made them go to a “diversity training class” for having a different opinion on gays. They HAD to go or she would fail them. What that had to do with an english course I don’t know. I like the way she gets the left all riled up.
ChrisIansNana on March 3, 2007 at 10:36 AM
I like the way she gets the left all riled up.
ChrisIansNana on March 3, 2007 at 10:36 AM
Look at above comments, unbelievable! Not single person here is responding to ‘why’ it’s only based on ‘because I like/hate her’. It reminds me of Dinesh D’Souza attacking then misquoting Robert Spencer at CPAC debate, that was bizarre!
mimi on March 3, 2007 at 10:44 AM
Yeah, but if anything is a case of “two wrongs don’t make a right,” this is it. Like you said, the comment was ugly, undignified and just makes you feel icky when you hear it. She didn’t accomplish anything with it, except to get attention for herself and make CPAC all about her.
I usually get annoyed with the “I’m a conservative but I hate Ann Coulter (please like me!)” grandstanding, but she’s getting tiresome and well, shrewish.
spmat on March 3, 2007 at 10:47 AM
By that logic, Howard Dean is a Republican.
Professor… I’ve never seen you make such a reasonless statement before.
Maxx on March 3, 2007 at 10:47 AM
Well put, quite understandable. Many other comments have also been well made, on both sides. Which leaves me confused and conflicted.
Someone help me out here; if Ann Coulter’s remarks are a tactic in our political confrontation with the left, and which seemed to do nothing more than inflame the extremists at both ends of the political spectrum, how do those remarks advance our pursuit of conservative public policy?
Is it not true that implicit in the idea of conservatism is the notion of self restraint? Do we not expect some level of restraint from the extremist on our far right? Is it not our intent to discredit the public policy of the extremist left?
How do these remarks advance our cause?
rockhauler on March 3, 2007 at 10:50 AM
Amazing Dinesh D’Souza attacks then misquotes Robert Spencer at CPAC debate not a single person mentions it….we’re talking about Ann Coulter.
mimi on March 3, 2007 at 10:55 AM
I disagree. Before you react, just hear me out.
Why would a conservative who completely understands the hypocrisy of the left say reckless comments that leave her open to credible claims of hypocrisy?
IE; A good example of hypocrisy born from ideological ignorance (and sometimes purposeful disengenuosness) is that goon Amanda Marquette. She is an ideological whore that couldn’t care less about intellectual honesty. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to see that.
Now we have Ann and her comment. Her comment did not engender the same feelings that it was clear-cut hypocrisy. Most people are scrambling to come up with a reason WHY it was not immediately obvious what the “problem” was with her point. People had to stop and think about it, whereas with Marquette it was totally obvious. Most peoples problem with her comment started with an emotional reaction and now they are trying to apply rational thinking to explain it. This was not a flippant remark. It had a purpose and most didn’t get it.
Ann’s purposein the conservative movement is to pull the definition of moderate thinking more towards conservatism (where it used to be).
Since the 60’s the emotional shrill of the liberal left has pulled the moderate center towards liberalism. That was a tactic from the left that has worked very well. Look how many conservatives disregard true conservatives for candidates that appear to embrace traditional liberal positions. That is all the evidence we need to prove the shift of conservatism to the left. The conservative movement has been chipping away at that shift since the Reagan years and we have a fairly loyal base. Now the left is resisting this shift by using the same shrillness that worked so well in the 60’s/70’s. Well, the conservatives have learned their lesson. People like Ann and Rush and their percieved extremism has the net effect of giving the credibility of moderation to conservatives who have not changed their position. We will win the battle because conservatives for the most part use their heads and rational instead of their hearts and emotional knee-jerking.
This tactic plays to conservative strenghts and liberal weakness. The only way for the far left to attack what Ann and Rush is to move towards rational attacks in order to strenghten their position. This is where we get them on their hypocrisy and they can do nothing except run back to their shrill emotional outbursts which further illustrates their disengenuousness.
Ann and Rush et al are professionals and have a plan that goes much deeper than their comments seem to suggest on first examination. Most of us are driven emotional when we get to the end of our rational plan to counter the left and cosequently play to their strenghts of emotional blathering to shame people into conforming.
We are conservatives for a reason. We use our heads and shun emotionalism as a means to an end. My favorite line comes from a good friend and it goes like this; “Just remember, we’re all born with a librals heart- some of us, however, were also born with a brain and know how the world really works.”
We cannot continue to accept our moderate conservatism to be defined as far right and allow the enemies of reason to define the center as free-wheeling and irresposible immorality.
It’s our job to stay strong in conservative based ideologies and it’s Ann and Rush’s job to pull that base towards us and bring sanity back to the definition of exactly what the center really is.
csdeven on March 3, 2007 at 10:56 AM
I think all the Democrats should appologize for ever appearing in any space with Robert KKK Byrd, he used the N word and was a member of the KKK. The Democrats should appologize for ever standing Jessie Jackson, he made teh Hymie Town remark. The Democrats should be out the appologizing for appearing with Al Sharpton for his many anti-semetic and biggoted remarks. They stand with John Conyers of Michegan, he hangs out with Lousi Farrakan. This is a small list off the top of my head of who they never appologize for offiensisve associations for. I am sure someone with time can do the research and make a list up.
StuLongIsland on March 3, 2007 at 10:59 AM
ANN COULTER SAID ” IF YOU SAY FAG**T, you have to go to rehab”. “If you say” making a reference joke to EVERYONE in Hollywood these days is using REHAB to escape the accountability that ensues then you step outside the line of political correctness. “IF YOU SAY” get it????????????
mimi on March 3, 2007 at 11:10 AM
csdeven understands how the battle is being fought.
If you think Ann throws bombs for the fun of it, or out of emotionalism of any kind, you’d best leave the fighting to serious people. Ann operates on the basis of (cold, shrewd) calculation, not emotional outburst.
Ann understands the left speaks more for effect than message, and she turns the tactic back on them as needed to make her point. As csdeven points out, she understands the function of the dialectic in the national debate, and more than anyone I know, she’s willing to take on enemy fire to advance our front line artillery.
As I recall, Ann’s last flap was over some outrageous comment about the Jersey Girls. Did anyone notice that, using the resulting debate, she almost single-handedly interruptsed the relentless parade of “human shields” the left was conducting at the time? But making a spectacle of the matter, she dragged the issue under the spotlight, made it the object of public scrutiny, and exposed the tactic for the shallow rhetorical gimmick it truly is.
petefrt on March 3, 2007 at 11:35 AM
I have been reading the vitriolic and hypocritical outrage over what Ann said at HuffPo and have been laughing. This same group of people cheered Cheney’s close brush with a bomb but they are going to take exception to Ann mentioning the word Faggot and their favorite Breck girl in the same sentence please!
RichSchein on March 3, 2007 at 11:44 AM
All she did was reference a ’stick’ or perhaps a cigarette.
Thats the John Kerry/Alan Colmes defense , but in this case you CAN look it up.
Double standard and the rehab for anything, she made a well thought out point. Would I have done it? Probably not, but I’ll back up her right to say it, just as the left does with outrageous and heinous comments DAILY.
shooter on March 3, 2007 at 11:46 AM
Somebody call the paramedics and get an IV started on Ann Coulter. You dolts! It’s the lack of sustenance that is making her MEAN!
(Silky Pony just might be naive enough that we could get him to believe that assertion, if we try.)
CyberCipher on March 3, 2007 at 11:49 AM
Can you believe the Edwards campaign is attempting to use this for fundraising efforts? Desperate much Silky P?
https://johnedwards.com/action/contribute/coulter
“Coulter Cash”? Are you kidding me? I don’t think it could get any more lame than this.
Exit Question: Is what Ann said anymore offensive than the hate spewed by his former bloggers (whom he stood by and only later dropped when the story made it’s way out of the blogosphere and got a bit of mainstream play)? Oh yeah, I forgot, they were hating Christianity and that’s allowed. But Coulter uses one derrogatory term and it’s “hate speech” deemed unacceptably offensive to the Edwards campaign.
Incase anyone forgot the rules, there’s just one: You are allowed to mock anything traditional, white, Christian, Republican, etc… but don’t you dare even act like you’re going to mock any minority group (unless you are also of a minority group).
RightWinged on March 3, 2007 at 12:11 PM
Re: “Taking the high ground” and “we’re BETTER than they are.”
I understand your point and wish you the best of luck in your endeavors to fight a pack of rabid dogs with reason and civility.
I don’t agree with it, however. I suppose that’s why few people pick fights with me. They know that if they poke me in the eye, I won’t bend over and be civil. I’ll kick them square in their external genitalia and smash their heads against my knee.
I didn’t choose the ROE. I just accept them as ugly reality and fight accordingly. Losers fight “fair.”
Misha I on March 3, 2007 at 1:24 PM
Great thread everybody! I feel rejuvenated after reading all the well thought out comments. I stand by my argument that
1) Ann was making a joke and not a personal attack.
2) It didn’t directly refer to Edwards, she was mocking the Isiaiah Washington debacle and used him as an example likely because of the powdering the nose incident.
3) She is not running for office and she is not a politician. She is a comedienne.
4) She knew what she was doing and the reaction it would get. As did I when I referred to Jummy’s argument as fascist.
5) Anyone who condemns her is too PC to really believe in liberty and should consider joining the demoncat party.
6) Liberty is freedom to express yourself. She was mocking the ultra tolerance of liberalism that we all should deplore.
7) To be truthful, I think she could have used a different word or subject matter to make the same point without getting a bunch of people on our side of the aisle upset.
8) On the other hand, I think it separates real conservatives from pantywaist apologists who claim to be.
9) I despise liberalism for its affect on my individual liberty. As I already said. Liberty includes intolerance as one of its cornerstones.
10) Its precisely this PC-ness that Ann is mocking. ie. Liberals are trying to change “illegal alien” to “undocument resident” or some such tripe.
11) Its been said a few times on here that its unwise to alienate certain voters. I don’t care if I alienate liberals of any persuasion. Yes, even if they are gay.
I also want to say that I’m honestly shocked and hurt by the rhetoric used by some of you against me and others that have defended Ann. We fight side by side with you against those that would take what we believe in away from us. An incident like this is hardly worth this much strife. Before anyone starts in on me about anything I have previously posted, you darn well better quote me in context. I am tired of having to correct people about what I said by pointing to precisely what I said. Finally, can’t we all just get along? I put down my keyboard and agree to play nice with everyone from here on in. Let’s agree to disagree and go back trashing leftist policies and terrorist Islamofascists like before.
RobertCSampson on March 3, 2007 at 1:32 PM
Me and everyone I know understand it to be a gay slur. You should travel more.
aengus on March 3, 2007 at 1:46 PM
No, and as far as I’m aware people on this blog are just as opposed (if not more so) to anti-Christian bigotry.
aengus on March 3, 2007 at 1:48 PM
And which he now gets a pass on, thanks to Coulter.
Jim Treacher on March 3, 2007 at 2:12 PM
Would any of us be the least bothered by Ann’s remark if not for the knowledge that the MSM and the Democrat Thought Police would inevitably exploit it (dishonestly) as more “proof” that the Right is bigoted? Try to look at this whole thing without the fear of the MSM: still upset at Ann for making a little joke?
The Right, living in fear of being labeled “insensitive” by the Left, will (and will deserve to) lose.
I agree that anyone who labels Ann’s remark “hate-speech” is buying into PC groupthink. C’mon, everyone, this is ridiculous. How afraid are we, really, of being called names by them?
Halley on March 3, 2007 at 2:55 PM
My lame jokes aside now, I’ll try to contribute on a more serious note.
Professor Blather has already posted an eloquent summary of essentially the same view on the matter that I myself hold. So I won’t belabor that viewpoint — other than to say “kudos” to the Professor. Go ahead. Call me a prude. I’ll wear it like a badge of honor. No matter. There are other (more disturbing) things in this thread that I’d like to address.
First, like any other “band of brothers” drawn to each other by their common beliefs, conservatives are a diverse group that encompasses a wide array of personality types. I’ve read at least some of Ann Coulter’s books. I certainly accept AC as a conservative (although I am not certain that she’d accept me). There are many posters here that defend AC’s penchant for name-calling. Even though I accept AC’s champions as fellow conservatives, her defenders should be cognizant of the fact that they are advocating decidedly liberal tactics. Other posters here on this thread have already cited the relevant statistics — and indeed, the numbers do not lie. Liberals ARE characterized (defined?) by their unhinged hatred of others AND by their ubiquitous use of foul and abusive language. So if you call yourself a conservative, and you want to be mistaken for a liberal, just keep on defending and advocating crass behavior and verbal abuse.
Second, when AC says that she is a Christian, THAT’s when I cringe (and BTW, she DOES make that claim). The thing that we Christians need to (perpetually?) remind ourselves of (like Bryan, for instance — who got this thread rolling in the first place) is that conservatism and Christianity ARE NOT THE SAME THING. So it should not surprise any of us Christians if the conservative movement has its participants that do not exhibit Christian behavior. That statement is the closest thing that you’ll see from me that might be taken as a defense of those posters here that advocate AC’s tactics. Furthermore, on the day when those individuals here who advocate the use of crass liberal tactics begin to insist that ALL of conservatism’s constituents MUST accept and/or adopt those tactics (in a mandatory fashion) — THAT is the day on which over half of the participants will bail-out and go elsewhere (I am speaking of committed Christians here).
Third, although the award in the humor category was decidedly captured with
I must nominate the following as the most disturbing post in the thread:
What you are advocating here, George, is the old “fight fire with fire” mentality. I reject this notion outright. Go ahead. Call me a fool. I do not think that there is ANY position that you could possibly hold or advocate that would be more decidely abhorrent to me. I’ll have no part of it.
It is noteworthy that this “eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth” mentality was championed in recent times by one of the slickest and most universally heralded LIBERALS of all time, viz. Carl Sagan. Sagan published articles (with statistical-scientific data, to back him up) showing that the most effective and successful strategy for “getting what one wants” is to adopt a “tit for tat” strategy, i.e. if you are polite and courteous, I respond to you in like kind, but if you are abusive and behave badly, I again respond to you in like kind. Sagan promoted the adoption of this strategy as “THE ANSWER” to all social, political, and international discourse. And it may indeed BE the most effective strategy for “getting what one wants” during our temporal existence here on earth. I wouldn’t even try to dispute that (at least, here on this thread). But IMHO, THAT is NOT the POINT. Nothing would be MORE un-Christian than to adopt THAT strategy. We Christians hold-out the hope for something far better than this “tit-for-tat” mode of existence that we see here on earth where the “prince of the power of the air” rules (which, of course, should not to be associated with HotAir — even though I suspect that the air in hell is pretty hot). The hope for us Christians is in heaven — and it is THAT hope that we Christians will unabashedly continue to draw our inspiration from and focus our thoughts and actions upon.
CyberCipher on March 3, 2007 at 2:57 PM
I love “Christians” who forget the #1 doctrine of Christianity is not to judge others. I’ve spent my whole life avoiding those who attempt to apply their view on others. Thats precisely what this thread is about. Liberalism is what, in our society, defines acceptable speech. I reject that outright. Conservatism’s doctrine is individual liberty. True, individual responsibility follows closely behind. This may be where some of you have trouble with Ann’s remarks. Just keep in mind, its your fear of backlash, not your desire to stifle Ann’s free speech that keeps you preening over your “we are better than that attitude”. To quote Blather, you are what you hate.
The more I read these posts, the more I have to say I’m upset she made her comments. Not because she expressed her individual liberty in doing so but that she exposed that many of you don’t hold the same standard of conservatism as I do.
Also, no one is getting a pass on anything they say. This in itself is proof of that. You should be griping at the ACLU for giving people a pass for indecent words and actions not Ann Coulter.
RobertCSampson on March 3, 2007 at 3:13 PM
Me and everyone I know understand it to be a gay slur. You should travel more.
aengus on March 3, 2007 at 1:46 PM
That’s ethnocentric. You claim to swing in a certain group that uses common wordage a certain way, in fact apart from the dictionary definition, and then you are surprised to discover other people use the same wordage to mean something else, in fact a milder use of the term and you are giving me a hard time? Why should I be forced to debase it to the more vulgar usage? True cultural sensitivity requires that one recognizes that regional variations exist, and that well-travelled people learn these differences so they become more savvy.
I’m sorry to hear that the word is used among people you know that way. You should be delighted to discover that there are many people who use faggot to mean something else. Maybe you have taken offense at some people in the past that you shouldn’t have - by reading in an interpretation that was never intended. Obviously, the usage isn’t uniform from coast to coast. It’s important then to determine the user’s understanding of it – it’s the difference between getting in a fight versus having a good laugh together.
Of course, the real problem here is that Edwards will not be able to recover from this. He’ll have to repeat it to protest, and the more he does, the more it’ll sink him. If one word can be that devastating to a man, then there is truth to it. Try applying, even with super glue, any one of the following to Edwards – and none will stick: “heroic,” “statesmanlike,” “thoughtful,” “earnest,” “clever,” “stoic,” “steely” … not a none. And the people who will employ this worse against him will be his own Dem Party competitors.
naliaka on March 3, 2007 at 3:24 PM
I do not agree with what Ann said but as far as the people who keep saying Edwards and other liberals are going to get a pass on what they have said because of her…thats ridiculous…you act as if they were not going to get a pass anyway…Republicans and Dems are held to two different standards and always will be.
EnochCain on March 3, 2007 at 3:27 PM
I’m thinking this must be the “record” for number of comments on one topic. Does anyone remember one bigger than this?
asc85 on March 3, 2007 at 3:27 PM
Nope. Not even close. In the archives, there’s one with 500+ comments (that I know of). There may be others. Anybody know what the record is?
CyberCipher on March 3, 2007 at 3:49 PM
Agreed.
That said, the Right has always been held to a higher standard because the Right expects a higher standard of everyone.
Sadly, its this expectation of higher standards that makes the Left so attractive to so many since it has so few.
As for Bryan’s sensitivity to Coulter’s comment, I have to ask which is worse — Coulter’s use of the word “faggot” to describe her opinion of John Edwards or Cheney’s use of the word “asshole” to describe Adam Clymer?
Second, would this thread have even been created by Bryan if Coulter had used the same descriptive that Cheney used?
And third, has it ever really mattered to the Left whether the Right takes the high road or not?
.
GT on March 3, 2007 at 4:03 PM
I don’t agree with the language used, but I certainly understood her sentiment.
Ann is NOT running for anything. Ann is not occupying any specific elected position. Ann has not broken any laws. Ann is not responsible for anyone else’s actions other than her own.
Liberals hate her because she calls them out, and hits all of their sensitive areas with pinpoint accuracy. Many conservatives loathe her because her tactics are of the “scorched earth” variety that tend to diminish everyone else on the same ideological side.
Comparing Ann with Rosie is just plain ridiculous. While tempting it is go for the personal attack, I will only say that BOTH have their places in the marketplace of ideas. Red meat is red meat, and both Ann and Rosie serve it up with lots of relish.
If you ever want to know where the perimeters of civility and raw discourse fall, just look to where those two women are. Your confusion is most likely to disappear.
The MAIN reason why Ann Coulter is such a bullseye for so many people is because she is an attractive conservative woman with the skills to motivate, to rally, to enlighten, to enrage, and to give voice to the things that so badly need them to so many.
Obscure individuals don’t generate that kind of buzz. Ann can, and for better or worse, I wouldn’t have her any other way.
itzWicks on March 3, 2007 at 4:04 PM
Gosh, thanks for clearing that up. And here I was thinking it was “[T]hou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength.”
spmat on March 3, 2007 at 4:04 PM
Just like the last election our conservative party is splitting up. Hey I’m no one here just an average American, but the more I come to Hot Air the more I see how out-of-touch these Hot Air/bloggers are to someone like me. And I’m still waiting for an apology from Sister Toldja and Hot Air writers that sent me assorted colored straight jackets and called me “Rabid”, among other things, that was just wrong and hurtful-I’m not writing a blog or putting myself out there publicly, I simply had a different opinion and I didn’t deserve that! If we all resent Ann Coulters remarks so much start a petition on how you see her hurting us, otherwise this is nothing more than pointless talk! Hot Air hurts the conservative effort when you post rude remarks and accusation when someone disagrees with you.
mimi on March 3, 2007 at 4:07 PM
Great stuff everyone!
OK, point one, the requirement to be true to oneself as a christian.
Absolutely! A very strict christian would be betraying their level of committment to their faith if they adopted the lifestyle that Ann leads. I’m sure Ann knows this. Ann doesn’t want us all to change. She and those like her are bringing the center back towards conservatism FOR PEOPLE LIKE US. She is the soldier who sacrifices a level of spirituality for our benefit, just as our troops sacrifice so we don’t have to engage in what they have to experience. Our job is to BE what we are and support her efforts by sticking to conservative ideologies so her efforts are not wasted. So, cut her some slack, support the ideal, and make no excuses for her words to accusatory liberals. This is easy to do because we have logic and reason on our side and they have emotional outburst and PC’ness.
If we as christians sit in our ivory towers deriding the tactics of the Ann’s of the world, waiting for someone/something to stem the tide of liberalism that is destroying our country, we are gonna be hiding in our homes like Lott and his family.
Point two, those of us who don’t like the attitude of SOME conservative christians.
Wake up. It is for many of the ideals that christians stand for that we fight liberals. If we don’t support those who have faith in God, then we are no better than the liberal moonbats who WORSHIP secularism. We need to remind christians that we will take the heat for any breech in our christian behavior, if they will not make our sacrifices null and void by undermining our efforts by acquiescing to the liberals accusations. We are different, even though it SOUNDS the same. We have reason and a plan, they have emotional knee-jerk reactions and PC’ness. Someone has to fight the liberals with the tools that are most successful and we need to accept that our christian brothers are holding the moral line even though we are perhaps at times on the other side of it. We appreciste them for that strength.
We are all on the same side and make no mistake, WE ARE AT WAR with the ideologies of liberalism that lead to destruction. Ann et al are the soldiers and we are the beneficiaries of their sacrifices.
Lets start working together folks. It’s the liberal mindset that turns on itself, not conservatism.
Peace.
csdeven on March 3, 2007 at 4:49 PM
Look at all the people, here and elsewhere, going on about what you are supposed to say, supposed to not say, and how to properly feel about all this.
I don’t think I heard Ann call Edwards a faggot at all. She specifically declined to, on the grounds she might be expected to enter rehab for using a naughty word. Of course, the implication is, Edwards might be a faggot, but I’m not sure anyone thinks she really believes it.
In any case, who cares?
The point is, politically correct speech is being lampooned by Ann Coulter, and nearly everyone misses her point because they are too busy having a intestinal cramps over the word “faggot”. Nobody even heard what she really said.
Republicans need to act like Republicans, not self-loathing, America-hating, spineless Democrats.
rogersnowden on March 3, 2007 at 6:10 PM
I don’t think was going to call him a faggot. She was going to call him much worse than that, but did not because she would be expected to go to rhab. The word faggot was in reference to some recent celebs using the word and then going into rehab of some sort.
csdeven on March 3, 2007 at 7:36 PM
If you don’t like Ann Coulter, you hate America! Great stuff.
Jim Treacher on March 4, 2007 at 4:35 AM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 Next »