Audio: Laura Ingraham addresses L’Affaire Coulter
posted at 4:09 pm on March 5, 2007 by Bryan
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
In her second hour today, Laura Ingraham tackled Ann Coulter’s non-botched joke about John Edwards. Click to play.
(source: lauraingraham.com)
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: 1 2 Next »
Come on – Laura Ingraham??
Everyone knows she’s nothing but a gutless PC RINO.
John from WuzzaDem on March 5, 2007 at 4:14 PM
And that’s why we Malkinite RINOs love her so much, John.
Bryan on March 5, 2007 at 4:15 PM
Bryan, so true.
amerpundit on March 5, 2007 at 4:22 PM
Why is Laura Ingraham so liberal and jealous of Ann?
Alex K on March 5, 2007 at 4:22 PM
I’m outraged. Who the Hell watches CSPAN with a five year old?
Savage on March 5, 2007 at 4:22 PM
In many European languages faggot means bassoon (the ochestral instument). See: faggoto (Italian), fagott (Swedish, German), fagot (French). So it’s all cleared up now – Ann called Edwards a bassoon. What’s all the fuss about?
Halley on March 5, 2007 at 4:27 PM
Finally a conservative has come forward and denounced Ann Coulter’s rhetoric.
frankj on March 5, 2007 at 4:30 PM
I think we need a new acronym.
How about RINO, for RINOs In Name Only?
You know, people who wish they were as conservative as RINOs.
Wait, I think there’s a potential for confusion here. Let me think this over.
John from WuzzaDem on March 5, 2007 at 4:31 PM
Heh.
John from WuzzaDem on March 5, 2007 at 4:31 PM
Well I love Laura’s show and I damn sure ain’t a RINO – much less a PC one!
Guess that’s why her view on this confuses the hell out of me though.
Ditto Michelle’s.
Teddy on March 5, 2007 at 4:39 PM
Doesn’t she realize that Ann was referencing the whole Grey’s Anatomy incident?
..and the whole SILKY PONY thing she does, is that better? Just because she uses prettier words?
jjjen on March 5, 2007 at 4:41 PM
From what I’ve gotten off this site, nothing else happened at CPAC. Yawn, beating a class horse won’t kill it.
If you want to seen Coulter’s excellent speech, Msunderestimate has it. Liberals are victims no matter what. Conservatives make mistakes and get on with their lives.
Warning. Her site is pretty busy today.
Timber Wolf on March 5, 2007 at 4:43 PM
Good question.
The word is offensive to many people. It makes sense that the pundits who do not insult as part of their routine would disagree with Coulter’s use of the word.
Esthier on March 5, 2007 at 4:43 PM
According to liberal author David Brock (in his 2002 book Blinded by the Right), Ingraham, while writing for The Dartmouth Review in the mid-1980s, once attended meetings of a gay student organization for the purpose of publicly outing them in the newspaper. Ingraham secretly taped a meeting of the Gay Students Association, then published the transcript, identifying students by name and calling them “sodomites”.
Jeffrey Hart, faculty advisor to the Dartmouth Review, later wrote in The Weekly Standard that Ingraham held “the most extreme anti-homosexual views imaginable” as an undergraduate, and that she avoided a local restaurant for fear that gay waiters might touch her silverware or spit on her food, exposing her to AIDS.[5]
A decade later, on February 23, 1997, however, Ingraham wrote an essay in the Washington Post in which she announced significant changes in how she views gays and lesbians. This was motivated primarily by the experience of her own gay brother, Curtis, rumored to have been estranged from her for a time after the gay student group controversy, as he cared for his ailing partner:
In the ten years since I learned my brother Curtis was gay, my views and rhetoric about homosexuals have been tempered… because I have seen him and his companion, Richard, lead their lives with dignity, fidelity and courage.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laura_Ingraham
MEOW!
TheBigOldDog on March 5, 2007 at 4:43 PM
Not to worry, since seemingly every conservative commenting on this is either unaware of the fact that Coulter was referencing her comments on the Isaiah Washington affair, or is just pretending they don’t know, there’s a lot of confusion to spare.
One thing is clear, the 11th commandment is dead and buried.
Hey, how was CPAC?
JackStraw on March 5, 2007 at 4:45 PM
CPAC was cool. We have another big interview from the conference going up in the Vent slot tomorrow.
Bryan on March 5, 2007 at 4:46 PM
4-to-1 and counting.
TheBigOldDog on March 5, 2007 at 4:48 PM
No one ever accused Michelle or Bryan of being a RINO in the last thread of 400 comments. No one has called Laura a RINO in this one. So where did this RINO accusation come from?
All three of them are rock solid conservatives; however, they have misconstrued Ann Coulter’s comments.
By the way, Laura Ingraham was down at the Omni Shoreham today at the national VFW convention. She was awarded the annual media award for her reporting on the war in Iraq, her support of the troops and veterans, and her opposition to the way the MSM covers the award. They also awarded the annual Congressional award to Senator Joe Lieberman for his support of the war, and Dick Cheney gave a speech this morning.
But we’re still talking about Ann Coulter! I didn’t listen to Rush today, but other commenters are stating that he strongly supported Ann Coulter as did commenters on blogs.
januarius on March 5, 2007 at 4:49 PM
News on CPAC? Looking forward to it Bryan. Should have been the featured story instead Coulter…
Now for some good news. Surge anyone? 107 terrorists killed, arrested in security operations in Baghdad (in the last 24 hours).
Timber Wolf on March 5, 2007 at 4:51 PM
Jackstraw – Like the left, the “serious conservative bloggers” choose to ignore the context in order to bow in the direction of the PC culture.
Once again, Coulter proves her point. I’m sure Ms. Ingraham, Ms. Malkin and Bryan will be recommending a rehab facility any day now for the use of the dread “f-word that ends in “t”, not “f”.” Pfft!
MCPO Airdale on March 5, 2007 at 4:52 PM
Fer gawds sake, people…How is being anti-gay a conservative value today?
The “f” word in question is offensive, and as Ingram points out, a childish word itself.
And from what I’m hearing, most conservative bloggers are chastizing Ann Coulter for her comment, and most comments on those blogs are cheering Coulter and against the bloggers’ positions.
To say Coulter was wrong does not make one a RINO.
JetBoy on March 5, 2007 at 4:52 PM
Ignore the context? I was there. I got the Grey’s Anatomy reference immediately. But what she said was…get this…still wrong and indefensible.
Rush didn’t “strongly defend” Coulter today, by the way. He took more of a statesman’s sidestep to the whole thing.
Bryan on March 5, 2007 at 4:54 PM
And that, therein, lies the problem. It should be: Conservatives make mistakes, admit them and get on with their lives. From what I have read in the comments sections today is that there are a lot of conservatives who rather defend the mistake (and go to quite extrodanairy lengths in doing so) than admit a mistake. I can’t help but think of the Dixie Chicks. It wasn’t so much what they said, as to where they said it. Same thing with Coulter’s attempt at a joke.
DFWShook on March 5, 2007 at 4:57 PM
Why should we believe a RINO like you?
John from WuzzaDem on March 5, 2007 at 4:58 PM
Michael Medved has a good piece out on Townhall about the issue.
Its a good read.
.
GT on March 5, 2007 at 5:07 PM
Where can I find a list of these banned words and a list of groups that can and cannot be offended?
I think I know you can offend these groups:
Christians (and Catholics in particular)
White Males
Conservatives
Muslims (sometimes, depends where)
Italians
Hispanics (sometimes, depends where)
And you can’t offend:
African Americans
Gays
Muslims (sometimes, depends where)
Banned words:
N-word (makes sense, 100s of years of proof)
F-word (newly added, was simply slang up until at least 84 according to my dictionary)
C-word (sometimes, it’s actually being moved to the ok list I think given how often it’s used these days)
I really need the list. I don’t want to get myself in trouble and wind up in rehab.
Does anyone really think an was out to offend gays? Or, was she out to offend JE by saying he was gay? Or, was she out to mock Political Correctness and the culture of rehab? Oh, I am so confused. I just know she did something really bad but I’m not sure precisely why. Gay’s were slurred somehow. I guess use of an ancient word alone was enough? I must be too simple minded because everyone seems to know but me. (gee, I hope gay isn’t banned – Gay is ok to say right? Or, should I use Homosexual? Well, I’ll use gay until I’m told it’s offensive. It’s easier to type)
TheBigOldDog on March 5, 2007 at 5:09 PM
Ingraham’s was obviously totally unaware of the context or she is positioning for next year’s slot. Sorry, but it’s only indefensible to those who are unwilling to put the joke in context, a comment on the hypocrisy of the left. If you are worried about your kids seeing or hearing the word faggot, then don’t let them watch the news or read the newspaper where the whole Isaiah Washington thing played out for days.
And as long as this keeps getting posted I will keep saying the same thing, don’t blame Coulter for being Coulter. If you think it ruined CPAC then blame the same CPAC people who booked her last year when she did her raghead thing.
There is so much manufactured outrage on this dumb it explains why so many people think politics is a joke.
JackStraw on March 5, 2007 at 5:11 PM
Jetboy – The word is only offensive if you take offense. Either way, it sure isn’t worth the angst the “serious conservative bloggers” seem to have manufactured for themselves.
Here’s hoping that the holy shrine of CPAC is never sullied again with anything so base as the, “f-word that ends in “t”, not “f”.” /sarc
MCPO Airdale on March 5, 2007 at 5:20 PM
The MSM of course shows their true colors. They want a bruhaha, and if they don’t get one, they make one out of toothpicks. The talking points money quote is, “Ann Coulter dropped the f-bomb on John Edwards.”
Is that so? Now, what would be the first word the uninformed listener would come up with after hearing that statement? The MSM is very adept at jerking everyone around, in this case by deliberately disguising what was said, leading people to assume something else. Ann isn’t the one sneaking around twisting other people’s words. What is this? The Soviet Union? Communist China? The neighborhood “People’s Committees” where individuals were singled out, then their neighbors were pressured to turn them in, denounce them out of fear? If anyone takes the time to actually read Ann’s accumulated years of work,and it’s available, it’s obvious she has no animosity against gays of any sort, just hypocrites – of any sexual persuasion. The loudest whiners against her know this.
naliaka on March 5, 2007 at 5:21 PM
I like Laura but lets face it, she wouldnt back Congressman Virgil Goode when he objected to the use of a Koran to give the oath. She completely side stepped the issue in order to leave a patriot hanging out to dry along with the other weak knee’d conservatives in the media.
I suppose we can use Mein Kampf the swear in our elected leaders as long as the person using it is the politically correct color or has sex in the politically correct way (you know, the “F way” as she calls it).
The “f word”???? Give me a freakin’ break. How many “_ words” are we supposed to have in language now? Im sure sure she wouldnt refer to “cracker” as the “C word” or “redneck” as the “R word” if that were the topuic she was addressing.
I dont want us to turn into foaming at the mouth fanatics but the weakness of our so-called conservative “leaders” is just disgusting at this point.
DwnSouthJukin on March 5, 2007 at 5:22 PM
Indignation and righteousness are both indignant.
Ann was wrong to use the word, and I would never use it myself. Only Ann can do whatever now to go forward. She can apologize, with no results of any lefties suddenly admiring the righties or switching parties, she can do nothing and just be Ann, perhaps not being invited next year, she can go to ‘treatment’ like the princess/es of the Left and just move on, heh, if the media/lefties would let her (no, there are not double standards, none, whatever)…or whatever.
I really don’t care because the terrorists don’t care either – they think we’re all corrupt and a bunch of …. whatevers.
I find one thing very curious – those of you ‘exploding’ with indignation are probably many of you in the camp which in 2004 approved of the republican platform having treated gays as second class citizens, while expecting them to still remain in the ‘tent’.
I say it was wrong to use the word and wrong to put that item in the platform
I’m tired of the topic and it is a good excuse for the media to cover up the fakery on the left, the successes in the WoT and other way more important matters, while we rip our skin off.
One more curious item – I have not checked them out but I tend to believe that the gay sites are not as indignant about this as the conservative ones…maybe some of you know and can post to the contrary.
In a very strange way we need a very big disaster, the Left and the Right. I’m not wishing it – it’s just the only thing which will shake us into a sense of what is more significant. These are very strange times. I felt the same way ahead of the Nov. elections. We best wake up, or Tricare will look luxurious in comparison to all else.
Entelechy on March 5, 2007 at 5:25 PM
Laura Ingram has class. Period.
Ann is smart, no doubt. And I understand the point she was trying to make, but there are better ways of making it.
Rightwingsparkle on March 5, 2007 at 5:25 PM
You know that little “genious” baby that’s naming all of the presidents by picture?
Mazztek on March 5, 2007 at 5:27 PM
Funny thing, Coulter is the biggest RINO. Unless she starts her own party there will always be an ‘INO’ attached to her.
mesablue on March 5, 2007 at 5:27 PM
@ MCPO Airdale
One doesn’t need to be offended by the term, to know it offensive…
Calling Coulter on her comment is a simple matter of human decency, and upholding that decency as a cornerstone of conservatism.
JetBoy on March 5, 2007 at 5:31 PM
Which will happen first?
a) HotAir posts about Coulter again.
b) HotAir calls a 5′2″ married songstress who has no record of marital infidelity a skank.
Again.
.
.
.
.
.
c) HotAir shelves the sanctimony.
Stephen M on March 5, 2007 at 5:32 PM
And let’s remember folks, you have to take offense – no one can give it to you.
Stephen M on March 5, 2007 at 5:33 PM
I am waiting for another article condemning Ann Coulter at HotAir in the name of PC.
Like I said in the first piece, I see our schools have done a fine job..next stop hate speech legislation passes with the help of Republican Senators.
ScottyDog on March 5, 2007 at 5:36 PM
COULTER SPLITS MALKINITES. STOP. WAR BREAKS OUT. STOP. RINOS MOUNT EARLY OFFENSIVE AND CASULATIES RISE. STOP. LEFT CALLS FOR IMMEDIATE WITHDRAWAL. STOP.
Film at 11…
wccawa on March 5, 2007 at 5:40 PM
Is this Coulter-gate or Ann-gate?
Entelechy on March 5, 2007 at 5:41 PM
Coulter told a joke you don’t like — we get it — get over it.
Perchant on March 5, 2007 at 5:42 PM
Would you people stop before Greta gets into to this and we will not hear the end of it for months!!
EnochCain on March 5, 2007 at 5:54 PM
Arguing on the internet is fun! Next, let’s talk about where Anna Nicole Smith should be buried, so us libertarian potheads can have a shouting match with red state republicans over the soil quality of the Bahamas versus that of Lubbock, Texas. Because apparently, we can get divided and pick at each other like wounded hens over a single throwaway line, so why not have an online blood feud over something less petty?
Savage on March 5, 2007 at 5:56 PM
So why aren’t the Democratic candidates required to address everything Howie Dean, Bill Maher, Rosie O’Lesbo or some other left-wing jerk says in all seriousness?
JinxMcHue on March 5, 2007 at 6:00 PM
Because we’re Republicans…and we do the right thing. That’s the difference.
Don’t be so concerned about what the Dem’s do or don’t do…
JetBoy on March 5, 2007 at 6:07 PM
Explain to me all the Rudy love.
One of these things is not like the other…
JackStraw on March 5, 2007 at 6:14 PM
All I can say is John from WuzzaDem is cracking me up.
- The Cat
MirCat on March 5, 2007 at 6:17 PM
PC claims another conservative and the moderate center is conceeded to the liberals by our own volition.
Beautiful.
csdeven on March 5, 2007 at 6:20 PM
Republicans
Agreeing to
Condemn
Coulter’s
Odious
Oral
Nuggets
Jim Treacher on March 5, 2007 at 6:27 PM
Miss Polly Prissy-Pants (ACU and CPAC) do not condone or endorse every speaker or their comments at the conference. As such, Miss Polly Prissy-Pants (ACU and CPAC) leave it to our audience to determine whether comments are appropriate or not. “Ann Coulter is known for comments that can be both provocative and outrageous. That was certainly the case in her 2007 CPAC appearance and previous ones as well. But as a point of clarification, let me make it clear that Miss Polly Prissy- Pants (ACU and CPAC) do not condone or endorse the use of hate speech,” said David A. Keene, Spokesman for Miss Polly Prissy-Pants (ACU Chairman).
Emphasis and addition of Miss Prissy-Pants mine
MCPO Airdale on March 5, 2007 at 6:27 PM
That is true, but to attack her for using a word in a context in a way she did not use it, is a serious breech in conservative values. That is carrying the pc water for the libs.
You cannot claim to be a erious conservative last week and then bow to the liberal PC god this week and not expect people to start useing the word RINO.
csdeven on March 5, 2007 at 6:27 PM
She referenced the Washington thing in the above audio recording. Obviously she heard about it.
And she is forefront among conservatives who are sick of all the tabloid journalism in TV news, so she’s not being hypocritical about not wanting trash to come from conservatives either.
On this I partially agree. I don’t think Ann helped anything by saying what she said, but it’s not as though something like this couldn’t have been foreseen.
Esthier on March 5, 2007 at 6:29 PM
Geez, can we let this go already?
Shut up and blog. Oh wait…
Iblis on March 5, 2007 at 6:32 PM
My english lexicon has just run out of words to describe what I feel about Laura and the complainers. She said what she said and I, for one, don’t think she “thought” about it…that’s the problem with speaking to the choir…every word is not perused prior to uttering.
And, folks, there are a hell of a lot of words way worse. We just need to get over it and keep on, keeping on.
sharinlite on March 5, 2007 at 6:32 PM
The word itself is offensive. She also could have used the “n-word” for her joke, and it would have been in the same context.
Would you be defending her use of the word then? Conservatives don’t give Byrd a pass for when he used the word in a different context. When he used it, he probably didn’t even think he was being racist. He was just trying to make a point.
Everyone gets the context. That doesn’t mean it needed to be said.
And really, she could have said it a different way. Just because people are being forced into rehab for something, doesn’t mean society at large should accept what they were doing.
Esthier on March 5, 2007 at 6:33 PM
…or got the reference and still thought it was a dumb thing to say.
Right, everybody’s after poor ol’ Ann. Note Ingraham’s savage invective, like “I don’t wanna pig-pile on her” and “I don’t wanna run this into the ground.” Night of the long knives!
Jim Treacher on March 5, 2007 at 6:35 PM
And is anything wrong with that? Is Rush any less the conservative because he supports Ann but is more stateman-like about it?
If he did what you say he did, that is exactly what I expected ALL consevatives to do. Ann sacrifices herself and Rush honored that sacrifice by not backing down from the intent of the comment.
Every person here is calm and rational until they have to say the word faggot and then they get all wild-eyed. It’s like the word triggers some pre-conditioned response. And the net effect is the liberals hold on the center is still secure.
csdeven on March 5, 2007 at 6:35 PM
Anyone able to multitask while running his mouth on this topic is invited to consider the bare possibility that Coulter’s shot could have wounded the feelings of some member of the host staff. In that case, and for whatever it’s worth, the conduct of this argument probably isn’t helping matters. I have no reliable information, but that’s just my point. Even if we knew one way or the other, it seems we could still conclude that more worthwhile arguments are languishing while we have this catfight.
Kralizec on March 5, 2007 at 6:36 PM
More Ann? More name-calling? I don’t see why those who don’t support Ann’s antics are now suddenly “PC” and not “conservative” enough. Even if I’m not worked up by what Ann said doesn’t make what Bryan said about her any less true. She is first and foremost concerned about Ann Coulter. The conservative movement comes in a distant second. I’m not outraged, but I think she sounded incredibly childish. She makes herself look stupid quite a bit, and pointing this out doesn’t make one “liberal” or “jealous of Ann.”
violet on March 5, 2007 at 6:38 PM
Have to? Since when does anyone “have to” say a word that offends a large group of people?
Look, I’m actually a huge fan of Ann’s. I have all of her books and have read everything she’s written and every interview I’ve been able to find.
But what the heck are you talking about? She did not sacrifice herself. She was being confrontational, intentionally and chose a word she knew would create a stir. Maybe she wasn’t trying to bring attention to herself, but it’s impossible to see that she was “sacrificing” herself. And for what? A mediocre joke?
Esthier on March 5, 2007 at 6:40 PM
I think Ingraham also said something like, “That’s not helping.” Both barrels, man!
Jim Treacher on March 5, 2007 at 6:42 PM
They do? Then what fear is stopping them from focusing on her INTENT? All I hear is criticizms of the word.
I know,but do you?
Ahhhhhhhh, it did need to be said in order to expose the acceptance of PC that is running amok in the conservative party. To defeat PC you should be pushing her message and not focusing on the bad, mean, offensive word. Her message is way more important than the word. And the conservatives who are angry at Ann were her target audience, not Edwards. That means Y-O-U.
csdeven on March 5, 2007 at 6:43 PM
This has nothing to do with what the PC libs have to say…It’s about what we say is acceptable within our own party and idiology.
To infer that me, or anyone who criticizes Coulter for that slur, is a RINO…is absurd. And it’s a shame on our party to think saying “faggot” in any context is justified.
There are other parties out there who share your point of view without question…
JetBoy on March 5, 2007 at 6:47 PM
It’s hard to let go of this when some of our favorite conservative icons kow tow to the PC god.
Ohhhhh the humanity!!!
csdeven on March 5, 2007 at 6:47 PM
Wow guys. You’re right! There’s absolutely nothing wrong with what Coulter said! How could people have been so silly as to think so?
Next time she should say something about how Obama’s charitable donations are niggardly, how Rosie O’Donnel should shut up because her rantings are so awefully queer, or about how President Hu Jintao is building up his military to fill that chink in his armor. Wouldn’t that be hilarious and on the nose?
Lehosh on March 5, 2007 at 6:48 PM
Careful… they’ll call you “self-righteous.”
Jim Treacher on March 5, 2007 at 6:50 PM
And this is news, to who? If you have a dog who bites someone every single time they come into your house and then you invite another person into your house and the dog bites them, who’s fault is it? I’m not a Couler fan at all but this is so stupid it belongs in the stupid hall of fame. If anyone acted irresponsible it is CPAC. If there is any blame, it belongs to CPAC. When did passing the buck become a conservative value?
Hey, let’s just get by all this and rally around that hard core conservative Rudolph Gulliani.
JackStraw on March 5, 2007 at 6:52 PM
JT, I left you a ‘love’ note on the big thread on this topic :)
Kralizec on March 5, 2007 at 6:36 PM
Today, my HOTAiR Voltaire you wax Freudian or liberal/feeling, or sociological, or mysterious. I say to that “we love that member just the same”.
Entelechy on March 5, 2007 at 6:54 PM
It was a stupid thing to say.
The context is irrelevant.
In an age when most people have the attention span of a gerbil, you can’t say potentially inflammatory things that require a great deal of context in order to be understood. Not if you’re concerned about swaying others to your point of view, anyway.
Coyote D. on March 5, 2007 at 6:58 PM
I posted this a couple of hours ago and I should have said “war” instead of “award” in “covers the war”(obviously):
But back to Ann Coulter: No one called Michelle, Bryan, and now Laura Ingraham “RINOs.” What most people are saying is that you guys often don’t know how to defend conservatism. The public affairs among conservatives is pathetic. They will never defeat the Clinton machine by being PC.
Conservatives know how to fight wars, but they cannot fight political wars, and they act just like liberals in politics: Avoid any (political) fight, and if you get into one, try to win hearts and minds by not being nasty. Don’t ever be controversial like Ann Coulter.
Michelle Malkin posted the George Washington rules on personal conduct. Most of them were about being above the fray. The one who has studied them most is President Bush; hence, we have a Democratic Congress now.
This should have been the talking point about the Ann Coulter comments: “I would not have chosen those exact words, but her overall point, like her point on infallibility, is exactly correct. In the last election, Democrats showed they cared nothing about privacy or homosexual rights by attempting to out Republican gays. Ann was simply pointing out their hypocrisy by stating how liberals would describe John Edward’s obsession with his hair.” (Or something to that effect.)
Instead, conservatives immediately do what liberals do abroad: Become obsequious; tell everyone how sorry you are; start criticizing fellow conservatives and lose unity.
Wake up call: If we try to run a PC campaign in 2008, we are going to have a Democratic president and Congress.
januarius on March 5, 2007 at 6:58 PM
I see Treacher is now providing pass protection for Bryan. I’m happy to see that bloggers are quickly becoming just like the MSM when it comes to these things.
Circle those wagons, boys and girls and crank up the indignation!
MCPO Airdale on March 5, 2007 at 7:02 PM
Racist!
John from WuzzaDem on March 5, 2007 at 7:03 PM
Oops. Just read it again – forget that last comment.
John from WuzzaDem on March 5, 2007 at 7:03 PM
It’s the right-wing noise/hit/spin machine! No independent thought allowed. Ulterior motives only.
Jim Treacher on March 5, 2007 at 7:05 PM
Again, if that’s the case, then why do conservatives care that Byrd used the n-word?
And please, I would sincerely like to know. Would things be different if Coulter had used that word instead?
I’m not angry at Coulter. I find the joke mildly amusing. But I get that she shouldn’t have said it. Using that word served no purpose but to make a headline. That’s just a fact whether you can accept it or not.
Besides, no one in their right mind thinks Edwards is gay. She may as well have called him the n-word is she wasn’t going to stay on topic.
It would have been more humorous if she’d said “I don’t know if calling him a princess would force me into rehab,” or something that actually focusses on his vanity instead of calling him gay. And really calling him gay is juvenile. It’s what one of my college friends does repeatedly, making gay jokes as though his life depends on it.
Again, I’m not mad at her. But she really could have done better without offending people.
And really, I’m amazed here at those rushing to Ann’s defense (as though she needs it). Does that mean you rush to defend the Dixie Chicks as well?
Esthier on March 5, 2007 at 7:11 PM
Wake up call! Reagan did not win because he stooped to their level.
If we can’t be true to ourselves, we don’t deserve the White House.
Esthier on March 5, 2007 at 7:12 PM
George Will dislikes her. That is enough reason for a paleocon to love her.
Valiant on March 5, 2007 at 7:14 PM
hahaha You just used the liberals favorite tool (PCness) to try to minimize my comment by accusing me of calling you a RINO when I did no such thing.
Thanks for illustrating Ann’s point to the entire group.
But take heart jetboy, you probably just opened the eyes of many conservatives who weren’t quite sure what Ann was talking about. It’s too bad you didn’t do it on purpose like Ann did.
csdeven on March 5, 2007 at 7:20 PM
I don’t get it; it is perfectly fine to call Edwards a silky pony, but is wrong to call him a bundle of sticks or branches? What is wrong with this picture?
rmgraha on March 5, 2007 at 7:21 PM
Mr. Edwards “Jesus apalled” at Americans’ selfishness. In a move to buy
carbonindignation offsets, Mr. Edwards pledged to move 200 indigents into his new house.Entelechy on March 5, 2007 at 7:23 PM
Michelle,
Do you mind it when your kids here the term “screw you”? Or is it just the term faggot that they shouldn’t hear? It just seems a little hypocritical to play the “I’m glad I didn’t bring my kids along” card so they didn’t hear Ann say faggot, but you can say John screw you McCain and that’s okay?
wytammic on March 5, 2007 at 7:28 PM
See, there you go again. You ignore the point of the comment in favor of a PC attack on the way I said it. Beautiful.
Perhaps you should excuse yourself from the discussion? You can’t even comprehend the concept I am defending.
Lets try the socratic approach here….
What has Ann lost by using the words she uses?
Do you think she does not realize what affect those words would have?
Thats it. If you can’t answer those questions honestly, then I wont waste any more time on you.
csdeven on March 5, 2007 at 7:30 PM
Hey, do you mind? There might be kids reading this, you know.
John from WuzzaDem on March 5, 2007 at 7:33 PM
badda bing!
Yeah, especially if somehow Jimmy Durante were involved.
hahaha
csdeven on March 5, 2007 at 7:33 PM
@ csdeven…
What did I say that is PC in any way?
Is not offending someone…potential Republican voters maybe… PC? Is that what this is about to you?
JetBoy on March 5, 2007 at 7:35 PM
Please, explain to the group how well that swaying is going for the conservatives.
Leading by example will get you into heaven, but it will never win an ideological battle with an enemy that does not believe in your ideologies. You’re fishing with the wrong bait.
csdeven on March 5, 2007 at 7:37 PM
Any news about Anna Nicole Smith?
Sheesh, all this fuss from the conservatives about what Ann Coulter said. MM is as much to blame as anyone else. Whining about the coverage AC is getting is giving more coverage to the very subject people are whining about. Ironic.
Please bring back some Anna Nicole Smith coverage. At least that is not a bunch of conservatives with their panties in a knot about a WORD!
And we wonder why we lost the last election. Look within.
Wade on March 5, 2007 at 7:38 PM
Your arrogance aside, sure why not (even though you haven’t answered my question).
The respect of a few conservatives, not that she cares.
Of course she did. It brought her more attention. This is classic Ann.
Esthier on March 5, 2007 at 7:39 PM
If they got the reference that PC is run amok in the conservative party, why are they, as conservatives, carrying the liberals PC water?
csdeven on March 5, 2007 at 7:41 PM
Dude, it’s over. You won already. Stop dry humping the ball.
spmat on March 5, 2007 at 7:46 PM
LMAO!! @ spmat
JetBoy on March 5, 2007 at 7:48 PM
(it’s not dry anymore)
Jim Treacher on March 5, 2007 at 7:50 PM
Blah blah blah context…
Faggot is a vulgar word. The joke wasn’t funny. Yes I heard about Isiah Washington. So what? It wasn’t funny, it was grating. Mark Steyn makes thousands of witty wordplays about gay culture all the time and never comes off so crude. Coulter, like the Bushitler crowd, enjoys flinging verbal feces in people’s faces. Fine, but she shouldn’t represent the mainstream conservative movement.
aengus on March 5, 2007 at 7:50 PM
14 on Thursday, with half of the other with the same.
Jim Treacher on March 5, 2007 at 7:52 PM
Yes, not enough calling Presidential candidates faggots.
If Ann can’t call people faggots with impunity, the terrorists have won.
Pablo on March 5, 2007 at 7:52 PM
Calling people faggots, though? That’s your ticket in, baby!
Pablo on March 5, 2007 at 7:53 PM
Good. Ann was making reference to the insanity of PC, knew she would lose respect, and yet chose to sacrifice that for making her point.
She knew what she was doing and it was to flush out and teach the weaker conservatives. You are chosing to defend her for a percieved problem she creates for you with those you want to sway. Instead of jumping down her throat, why don’t you choose to support her point, but in a different way? Wouldn’t that be more effective use of your efforts? Or do you really think that people are going to run to the conservatives just because you admit a failing in one of their own? That’s called PC.
If you want people to follow the conservative agenda, then preach the agenda. Stop focusing on a word Ann used and focus on the message.
csdeven on March 5, 2007 at 7:55 PM
Who did she call a faggot?
Boy, you’re really struggling with this aren’t you?
csdeven on March 5, 2007 at 7:56 PM
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »