Hot Air Mobile
Home The Vault Gear About
Hot Air -- get your fill


Giuliani, Romney, McCain camps denounce Coulter’s attack on Edwards

posted at 5:12 pm on March 3, 2007 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | regular view

Conservative author Jennifer Rubin wondered this morning whether any Republican candidates would have the decency to do a little Sistah Souljah-ing here:

It is not “caving” into political correctness to distance and indeed condemn such remarks as unworthy of a political event like CPAC… Excommunication is not being suggested, just a public rebuke. By clearly stating her comments are beyond the bounds of civil discourse and her presence not a welcome addition to a mature political party, the Republicans could do themselves a world of good. How often does a party have the opportunity to display some measure of dignity, restraint and self-reflection.?

Actually, it sounds like she is suggesting excommunication. No presidental contender’s gone that far (yet), but if it’s condemnation she’s waiting for, the wait is over:

Of the major Republican candidates, only Mr. McCain did not attend [CPAC], but he denounced her remarks on Saturday morning. “The comments were wildly inappropriate,” said his spokesman, Brian Jones.

Mr. Giuliani said, “The comments were completely inappropriate and there should be no place for such name-calling in political debate.”

Kevin Madden, a spokesman for Mr. Romney, said: “It was an offensive remark. Governor Romney believes all people should be treated with dignity and respect.”

Coulter’s own reaction, per an e-mail to the Times: “C’mon, it was a joke. I would never insult gays by suggesting that they are like John Edwards. That would be mean.”

Do the denunciations mean Edwards’s site will quit referring to her as a “Republican mouthpiece” or his campaign manager, David Bonior, will stop sending out fundraising appeals like this?

John was singled out for a personal attack because the Republican establishment knows he poses the greatest threat to their power. Since they have nothing real to use against him, Coulter’s resorting to the classic right-wing strategy of riling up hate to smear a progressive champion. And the Republican attack dogs will keep playing this despicable trick as long as they think it works.

No, of course not. But there is, at least, a potential silver lining here for gay rights advocates. Says Robbie at the Malcontent:

Romney has spent months wooing the Religious Right with culture warrior issues like gay rights and abortion. It certainly doesn’t take an oracle to know gay marriage will come in for yet another bit of rehashing during the 2008 campaign. Now, every single time Romney or any other Republican candidate decides to take gay issues for a good beating to curry favor with the base, at the back of the media’s and many voters’ minds will be Ann Coulter calling someone a faggot after Mitt Romney said nice things about her. Politicians like to euphemize their positions. The sanctity of marriage. Platitudes about disagreeing with gay rights but affording homosexuals in society dignity and respect. Coulter has now made those euphemizations just a little bit more untenable…

If those who support gay issues possess any political wisdom, Coulter’s message will be entwined with anti-gay political rhetoric from now until election day. “Sancitity of Marriage. Faggot. Applause.” All of a piece. Love the sin, hate the sinner? Applause for faggot. Coulter receiving choice interview spots on programming like Hannity and Colmes? Applause for faggot.

For what it’s worth, Romney won the CPAC straw poll. Rudy came a strong second and, unlike Romney, with no big contingent of his own volunteers there cheering him on.


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: 1 2

Well Tim, you can believe what they say over at the atheist website if you want to, for me, I’ll go with what is inscribed into the Lincoln Memorial Album.

Maxx on March 4, 2007 at 3:00 PM

Uh, most of those quotes were pre-internet (most of the interviews were published in the 1870s) as I pointed out, his friends, business partners and even his wife denied his Christianity. I would take their word over those of someone who just met him. I’m not calling those pastors liars, but Lincoln could have easily said something he disagreed with for political points or as time moved on, they mis-remembered things.

Question: What church/denomination did he belong to?

Just answer me one question: Where in any of the thousands of letters he wrote did he embrace Christianity? It doesn’t exist.

As a Christian I am no fan of Atheists, but it is worse to deny the truth. It is why I will accept the words of the 4 Gospels as accurate and not those of the apocryphal Gospels from the 2nd and 3rd Century. Those closest to the man, most likely got it right, in this case Lincoln was an atheist.

Tim Burton on March 4, 2007 at 3:14 PM

Because we’re better than them?

Jim Treacher on March 4, 2007 at 2:25 PM

And that self righteous attitude right there turns away a lot more people than anything Ann’s said ever has.

Gianni on March 4, 2007 at 3:14 PM

Two stories on Ann? Why don’t you just join an anti-Ann Coulter web ring and be done with it?
Boo-freakin’-hoo.

thegreatbeast on March 4, 2007 at 5:25 PM

And that self righteous attitude right there turns away a lot more people than anything Ann’s said ever has.

What’s self-righteous about living up to your own standards?

Jim Treacher on March 4, 2007 at 5:42 PM

I’m just grateful and hopeful that folks like wryteacher are out there to preserve and pass on the unsullied original meanings of words that have been converted to slang.

RushBaby on March 4, 2007 at 7:17 AM

If you want a great reference for knowing what exactly the words meant at the time our Founding Fathers used them, then I recommend the Webster’s 1828 American Dictionary. Its available on CD also, I have both and they are very helpful!

Maxx on March 4, 2007 at 5:48 PM

What’s self-righteous about living up to your own standards?

Should I ban Treach for reasonableness? Yes or no — vote in the comments!

Allahpundit on March 4, 2007 at 5:49 PM

RushBaby on March 4, 2007 at 7:17 AM

Oops… the link didn’t work for some reason…. here it is again.

Maxx on March 4, 2007 at 5:51 PM

Should I ban Treach for reasonableness? Yes or no — vote in the comments!

Allahpundit on March 4, 2007 at 5:49 PM

Up to you Allah, you run the show… wouldn’t be the firt time you banned someone for reasonableness. I’m still upset about Soothsayer, he didn’t deserve the ax.

Maxx on March 4, 2007 at 6:15 PM

Should I ban Treach for reasonableness? Yes or no — vote in the comments!

BAN!!!!!

He’s just too reasonable!

Slublog on March 4, 2007 at 6:47 PM

Should I ban Treach for reasonableness?

YES

Jim Treacher on March 4, 2007 at 6:48 PM

BTW – What’s a “Treach?” Sounds like a dental condition.

“Ma’am, you’ve got a heck of a Treach near your left molar. You’re going to need a root canal.”

Slublog on March 4, 2007 at 6:49 PM

Reasonableness? That’s laughable.

Gianni on March 4, 2007 at 7:11 PM

What’s self-righteous about living up to your own standards?

Jim Treacher on March 4, 2007 at 5:42 PM

Why don’t you ask the people who believe all conservatives are prudes and that we think we are better than everyone else? There are many people out there that believe that.

Gianni on March 4, 2007 at 7:24 PM

I would answer you, but I’ve been banned.

Jim Treacher on March 4, 2007 at 7:29 PM

Now you know why all three of these RHINOS do not deserve vote.

Vote for Duncan Hunter and Tancredo 2008.

ScottyDog on March 4, 2007 at 7:52 PM

Hey I like that idea, Hunter/Tancredo…Anyway I thought just about everyone knew Edwards was a faggot. I don’t know what the big deal is.

repvoter on March 4, 2007 at 10:31 PM

“So why do Republican politicians have to denounce things Ann says, but Democratic politicians don’t have to denounce things people like Amanda Marcotte say?”

Because we’re better than them?

Jim Treacher on March 4, 2007 at 2:25 PM

“And that self righteous attitude right there turns away a lot more people than anything Ann’s said ever has.”

What’s self-righteous about living up to your own standards?

Jim Treacher on March 4, 2007 at 5:42 PM

Should I ban Treach for reasonableness? Yes or no — vote in the comments!

No one should be banned, but Treach should be soundly chastized for claiming that the comment “Because we are better than them” is the same as standing up for his standards.

Unless it had an underlying meaning like Anns comments did, he was coming from a position of snobbish superiority. That is not the definition of reasonable. It’s the definition of insensitivity and hurts the conservative cause. Exactly what he has accused Ann of doing.

Now, Ann was making fun of the lefts hypocrisy (which they are) and Treacher was looking down his nose at Ann for his perception of her meaning (which he is wrong about). All that being true, why is Treacher picking up the lefts erroneous argument that Ann called Edwards a faggot unless he is suffering from a serious attack of PCness?

Refusing to stand up for the facts because it might look insensitive is what PCness is. Even if the only person who feels offended is you.

Having said that, we are going to need people like Treacher when the warriors like Ann win back the center from the left.Then Treacher et al will actually have a position on the spectrum to hold onto with their lead by example phylosophy. Right now all they can do is pray that their tactics will get the left to voluntarily give up the center to sane conservative ideals. Hate to break it to you guys, but it isn’t working and never will work in a dog fight. If it did work, we would have never lost the center to begin with.

“Lead by example” lost us the center to godless immoral liberals. They are immoral, they don’t care!! The only time liberals use the concept of proper examples is when they are using them as a way to silence conservatives with political correctness. They have no allegence to the concept of honor, only winning. That is why “lead by example” will never take back any lost political position to immoral people.

Ann is our Delta Force and we need to get out of her way.

Whooah! Go team!

csdeven on March 4, 2007 at 11:28 PM

Consider me “chastized”!

Jim Treacher on March 4, 2007 at 11:36 PM

Seriously, though, I want to thank csdeven for his coherent and well-written essay. Food for thought!

Jim Treacher on March 4, 2007 at 11:38 PM

Thanks for the kind words Jim. You owe me a good chastizement the next time I’m out of line. :-)

Keep up the good fight. We need to have a solid decent group of people like yourself who refuse to sacrifice their standards.

That feels like a good note to say goodnight on.

See you later.

csdeven on March 5, 2007 at 2:11 AM

Wait! Wait! I heard Ann bought some Moonbat offsets to decrease her Outrage Footprint. It’s all OK…

Spurlee on March 5, 2007 at 7:30 AM

“if you say faggot, you have to go to rehab.”

And who wants to go to rehab?

JackM on March 5, 2007 at 7:42 AM

Hey what kinda dirty trick was that, showing Ann Coulter with a GUN and getting me to CLICK on that picture… thinking I might see a video of her shooting something, only to find out I had to read all that?

DOH!

Rick Donaldson on March 5, 2007 at 2:37 PM

Comment pages: 1 2


You must be logged in to post a comment.