Video: Michelle talks Coulter and Maher on O’Reilly; Update: Video: Ann Coulter responds on H&C

posted at 9:27 pm on March 5, 2007 by Allahpundit

We’re all Coulter-ed out by now, I hope, but duty calls for the boss so she had a last go at it tonight with O’R and KP. There’s not much here about Ann that’s not in her post, but it’s worth watching anyway for the shots at Maher and the near outbreak of hostilities towards the end between our two fair heroines. An MM/Coulter war would be a headache, but an MM/KP war? Heart-ache.

I meant to splice in Kirsten’s goofy touchscreen intro but forgot. Next week, it’s on!


Update (Ian): Video: Coulter says “faggot” meant “wuss”


Ann Coulter appeared on Hannity & Colmes tonight, her first television presence since making her infamous “faggot” remark at CPAC last week. Coulter said she used “faggot” in the context of “wuss” and added it was a “schoolyard taunt” and a “sophomoric” joke. Hannity brought up all the names Ann has been called over the years. One of the left’s favorites seems to be “Man Coulter.” Haha, get it?

Democrat Pat Caddell, certainly not a “Fox News liberal”, thought Ann was joking. To be honest, I don’t think Ann’s remark was anti-gay, I really don’t. I do think the remark was hurtful and shouldn’t have been used, though. The panel brought up words Democrats have used in the past, including Senator Dick Durbin’s infamous comparison of the US military’s treatment to detainees at Gitmo to Nazis, Soviet gulags and Cambodia’s Pol Pot.

Exit question: What’s worse: John Kerry calling our troops dumb or Ann Coulter’s use of “faggot.”


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

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 3

Hit sumbit too soon. At least I didn’t say faggot;)

Heh. This is an error-ridden thread.

I, for one, am outraged.

Slublog on March 6, 2007 at 1:00 PM

Sorry, not trying to pull a “hillary fake accent” there. Meant “fair enough.”

Slublog on March 6, 2007 at 12:54 PM

heh heh heh…. I thought you meant the conversation went far enough. That would be a good one to put it ones repertoire.

csdeven on March 6, 2007 at 1:04 PM

You can tell by my name that I like a joke as much as anyone, and I think Ann’s “Edwards joke” was a good one. Unfortunately, not everyone has our sense of humor. Ann needs to remind people right before a joke like this that it’s a joke.

I’m bemused by the outrage being shown by the media. I see elected Congressmen and senators and other Demo spokesmen calling Bush and his team liars and worse. That to me is a bigger offense. Would you be more offended by someone calling you a liar, and meaning it, or someone calling you a faggot when you know its not accurate?

It’s time we start pointing out liberal incivility, such as the Condi Rice big lips caracature. That was no big deal to the mainstream media, so why should Ann’s comment be?

And, Michelle, please understand the level of frustration we feel out here in middle America. Ann is just giving back a little portion of what the liberals give us daily. There should be even MORE of it. As any forest ranger knows, you fight fire with fire… strategically placed, to limit the spread.

And lastly, would conservative types, Republicans, and RINOS all please shut the hell up rather than condemn one of us for a “lapse in judgement.” It’s self-defeating, and the mainstream uses it against us. When I see Nancy Pelosi apologize for Bill Maher’s remarks, THEN you can think about turning on your own.

Mustafa Hemmroid on March 6, 2007 at 1:16 PM

This whole thing makes me SO angry…

Are we turning into the Word Police on the Right? If so, I’m f@#king leaving. Ann’s joke was in context, and frankly, I (being from NC) think Edwards is a wussy nancy boy as well. And if I want to call him a “faggot”…by God, it is my God-given, protected Constitutional right to call that man a “faggot”. As it is Ann’s right too.

Grow a backbone, people…We’re not the PC side of the freakin aisle! ‘Bout friggin time that our side started firing verbal shots BACK at the libs. In real world politics, you don’t get credit for always turning the other cheek, verbal speaking. It makes us look weak…and I don’t know about you guys, but I ain’t weak!

tickleddragon on March 6, 2007 at 1:49 PM

I’m calm now…rant over. ;)

tickleddragon on March 6, 2007 at 1:50 PM

I believe that there are not things you say in polite company. I was also raised to believe that there are certain things you shouldn’t say at all.

Obviously, Ann Coulter was not raised the same way. However, anyone that has ever read a single one of her books, read any of her editorials, or watched any of her interviews would know that. Ann is a very known quantity – if you don’t want outrageous, in-your-face discourse, don’t invite Ann.

I do find some of the outrage a bit hypocritcal. It’s one thing if you object to the snide remarks and ad hominem attacks at all times, and many of the people that are objecting to Ann’s comments do. However, in the last few weeks, I’ve seen many posts (some of them official HotAir posts and not just comments) that call John Edwards (among other things), Breck girl, wuss, girly and Silky Pony (one of the HA favorites).

What is the point of all of those nicknames if not to question Edward’s masculinity and imply he’s a little gay? Are we supposed to feel better about it because we implied he was gay using “nice” words and not “mean” words? If the sentiment is the same, does it matter what word was used? Perhaps some of the people that are attacking Ann Coulter for supposedly coarsening the dialogue should take a look at the dialogue they’ve been promoting themselves. She may be more willing to use the outrageous and forbidden words, but, the things she’s saying aren’t that far off what many of the rest of us have been saying without anyone getting upset.

JadeNYU on March 6, 2007 at 1:54 PM

>I believe that there are not things you say in polite company. I was also raised to believe that there are certain things you shouldn’t say at all. Obviously, Ann Coulter was not raised the same way.

How do you know?

CPAC is not “polite company” and Coulter understands this.

If you want polite conservative company then read Modern Age and go to their functions, though you ought to know that NR’s mama’s boys have driven them out of the “movement” as well.

Modern American politics is not polite company. It’s the gutter, and the left embodies the mastery of passive-aggressiveness, and a yearning for polite conversation will only get you smacked down and mocked.

Drum on March 6, 2007 at 2:16 PM

Drum on March 6, 2007 at 2:16 PM

I actually wasn’t making my assessment of Ann based upon only the CPAC comment. This would be based upon my having read her books, her articles, her interviews and watched most of her television appearances. She is not the kind of person (by her own admission, many times) that is going to pull punches or watch what she says just because of who the audience is.

You are correct that I don’t know how she was raised (although latching onto a common turn of phrase is somewhat pointless) however, it is obvious that she has grown into a person that doesn’t change how she carries herself/speaks based on the audience. I happen to find that refreshing. Other people find it offensive.

As to your assertion that CPAC is not “polite company”, I happen to define a public forum representing conservatives with children in the audience as “polite company”. A good rule of thumb (for me, you might find it useless) is whether or not I would be comfortable if someone said the other F-word there. If I’m on my 360 playing Call of Duty, it doesn’t phase me in the least if someone cusses. If I were at church and the bishop threw out an F-word or two, I would feel very uncomfortable. From the description of the event, CPAC seems much more Sunday-schoolish than video game forum-ish.

Again, my first point was only that you know what you’re getting when you bring in Ann and if you don’t want her type of rhetoric at CPAC, don’t give her a speakers podium.

My second point was that I don’t see how the other people implying Edwards is less-than-manly are any different/better just because they use the ‘nice’ words to imply he is gay. If we honestly believe that there is no place in Conservative discourse for jokes about someone’s sexual orientation, we should be just as ready to jump on someone for calling JE a Silky Pony or the Breck girl as we are to jump on someone for making a joke where the implication is that he is a faggot.

JadeNYU on March 6, 2007 at 2:31 PM

and a yearning for polite conversation will only get you smacked down and mocked.

Drum on March 6, 2007 at 2:16 PM

Yeah, but they still get to look down their noses from their high horses.

csdeven on March 6, 2007 at 2:32 PM

Exit question: What’s worse: John Kerry calling our troops dumb or Ann Coulter’s use of “faggot.”

I seem to know which remark hurts the Americans’ national security by insulting the volunteer military and which one hurts their national security by damaging Republican electoral prospects. I’m pretty sure neither is the product of a capable rhetorician at work. As for capable rhetoricians, in matters of political speech that skirts the edges of propriety, perhaps the best one can do in our time is ask, “What would Mark Steyn say?” I can’t think of anyone who gets away with saying more than he does, on account of his politesse.

Kralizec on March 6, 2007 at 2:39 PM

JadeNYU on March 6, 2007 at 1:54 PM

Bullseye.

JadeNYU on March 6, 2007 at 2:31 PM

Bullseye again.

While Ann’s comments deserve crticism, the outrage orgy has really descended into self-parody – even moreso in light of the points you raised, Jade.

thirteen28 on March 6, 2007 at 2:57 PM

Is anyone else tired of OR saying he “outed” Edwards bloggers, that he was the one that got them removed? OR listen and learn, HA and others were on it before you woke up that day. You say you don’t read the blogs, and then you have become an expert on blog sites?
Put a mirror between OR and Hannity and you would see a real fight.

right2bright on March 6, 2007 at 2:58 PM

>JadeNYU on March 6, 2007 at 2:31 PM

Understood.

It’s interesting. I’ve gone back and watched the Buckley/Vidal episode and it strikes me that regardless of where one comes down on policies, when an opponent consistently resorts to disorder — whether it be trying to shut down free speech (like when MM spoke at Berkeley and you could hear the doors being slammed upon), or whether it be rhetorically (like calling someone a Nazi as a way to shut down the conversation) — the reality of the intention must be kept before us, and this is what Coulter is always doing. We are dealing with intellectual and moral thugs and babies and Coulter knows this and wants us to get it.

She is always saying things that force many of us to consider the larger picture. Calling Edwards or anybody a “faggot” is not the issue. The issue is that things have gotten so screwed up that saying it can put one in rehab or one day, if the morality police have their way, in jail.

Coulter is addressing the disorder that liberalism inevitably brings, and she is doing it in a manner that is on the surface disorderly, i.e. with shock.

Buckley, in his exchange with Vidal, was saying that the Chicago police have no obligation to allow disorder to be let into the convention center, and he was called a crypto-Nazi by Vidal for it.

Coulter has been shining a light on this very liberal penchant toward, and desire for, disorder (with accompanying slurs) by using a form of disorder herself. But when you fight an arsonist’s fire with fire, that doesn’t make you an arsonist, and it could in fact make you a hero.

Drum on March 6, 2007 at 2:59 PM

I am a big fan of Ann’s, but this was over the line. MM analysis is spot on. This was a unifying event, time to clean it up…save the rude comments for your columns.

right2bright on March 6, 2007 at 3:00 PM

…My second point was that I don’t see how the other people implying Edwards is less-than-manly are any different/better just because they use the ‘nice’ words to imply he is gay. If we honestly believe that there is no place in Conservative discourse for jokes about someone’s sexual orientation, we should be just as ready to jump on someone for calling JE a Silky Pony or the Breck girl as we are to jump on someone for making a joke where the implication is that he is a faggot.

JadeNYU on March 6, 2007 at 2:31 PM

I’ve mentioned in another thread that I think its femininity, not homosexuality per se, that should tend to disqualify one for the American Presidency. So calling Edwards names that call attention to perceived femininity seem quite to the point. One probably ought not care very much if a President seems to have a favorite, young first lieutenant, as long as he sees his own job more as facing foreign rulers with red teeth and claws, than as administering Social Security or protecting the environment.

Kralizec on March 6, 2007 at 3:03 PM

My second point was that I don’t see how the other people implying Edwards is less-than-manly are any different/better just because they use the ‘nice’ words to imply he is gay. If we honestly believe that there is no place in Conservative discourse for jokes about someone’s sexual orientation, we should be just as ready to jump on someone for calling JE a Silky Pony or the Breck girl as we are to jump on someone for making a joke where the implication is that he is a faggot.

JadeNYU on March 6, 2007 at 2:31 PM

ALLERT – No one here on HA, and also not A. Coulter, called Edwards gay. He is married with children, one having died in an accident.

Many of us think him to be a wuss and a primadona, hence the “Silky Pony” and “Breck Girl” references (remember the video with his endless hair-combing and straightening out ahead of a TV appearance).

The offensive thing, to some, was the use of the 2nd f-word. Context in which it was used also matters but by now explained repeatedly already.

Again, no one here, and not Ann, implied that he is gay.

Entelechy on March 6, 2007 at 3:17 PM

Entelechy on March 6, 2007 at 3:17 PM

The point still stands though that if it’s alright to call him a wuss by saying he’s a Silky Pony or the Breck girl, but not alright to call him a wuss by saying “faggot”, then it is the word itself that we are objecting to and not Ann’s coarsening of the discourse.

If it is the word that people are objecting to, then we need to be more clear about that when discussing it. People (here and in the MSM) keep saying that her comment was innapropriate and offensive and hurtful. If it was the comment, then I would expect to see similar outrage at comments which imply the exact same thing only using different words.

If it is the word, then what we are saying is that some words are allowed and some words are not; however, once we agree to that, we have to realize that we may not always be the one’s that get to pick which words are “good” and which words are “bad”.

JadeNYU on March 6, 2007 at 3:31 PM

What does this have to do with world wide ….

gmcjetpilot on March 6, 2007 at 9:45 AM

Actually, if one thinks about this for a while, the whole “fagg*t-gate” scandal is a SPLENDID indicator of the future of the conservative movement. The whole thing has VERY far-reaching/wide-ranging implications. One of the fundamental principles of civilized society is in play here, and it is being violated — big time. It does not bode well for the future of America.

I submit to all of you the following fundamental truth: Any political party, any community, any government, any corporation, any church, or any family CAN NOT survive if the members of those aforementioned organizations/entities are no longer able to police themselves. For example, everyone knows that the liberals are incapable of policing themselves. They can not root-out the nut-roots. Islam is the same way. Muslims REFUSE to confront the Jihadist extremists. Both liberals and Muslims are doomed to be dominated and enslaved by their very own extreme, insane, radical elements — because they simply WON’T “step up” and police themselves.

My last hope was for the conservatives. I was hoping that they were different from the liberals. After the past few days of reading these threads, I AM TOTALLY BUMMED. If the conservatives are incapable of policing their own, if they are incapable of holding up a mirror to their own face, or of leveling some honest constructive criticism at one of their own constituents, then we are ALL doomed. If conservatives continue to behave in this fashion, then they DESERVE to continue losing the elections.

CyberCipher on March 6, 2007 at 3:54 PM

What some are doing here is what the left did to Trent Lott when he joked about Strom Thurmond. Throw him under the bus.

roninacreage on March 5, 2007 at 10:47 PM

It wasn’t the left that threw him under the bus, it was us. And he deserved it. About the equivalence, though, you are quite correct. And she deserves it, too.

I like Ann’s thinking when she allows herself to be serious. But this kind of pointless sophomorism only reflects badly on her and she needs to be called on it. She would claim that she is only holding a mirror up to the left, using their own tactics agaisnt them and she has a point. But people who use such tactics all too often become what they behold.

JackOfClubs on March 6, 2007 at 3:57 PM

Oh, it doesn’t trust me. By the way, who died and left you in charge? An opinion cannot be stated without you spouting off and telling someone to leave? Nice.

wytammic on March 6, 2007 at 12:57 PM

I’m not the one hanging around here making ignorant comments about how there isn’t anything here that’s worth a damn. If you think that way, why the hell are you still here?? Didn’t realize we were all here to please you, your royalness.

Just pointing out the obvious.

Rick on March 6, 2007 at 4:23 PM

My last hope was for the conservatives. I was hoping that they were different from the liberals. After the past few days of reading these threads, I AM TOTALLY BUMMED. If the conservatives are incapable of policing their own, if they are incapable of holding up a mirror to their own face, or of leveling some honest constructive criticism at one of their own constituents, then we are ALL doomed. If conservatives continue to behave in this fashion, then they DESERVE to continue losing the elections.

CyberCipher on March 6, 2007 at 3:54 PM

CC, I think your bummitude is a bit premature, as this incident, among many other, demonstrates that conservatives are quite willing to police their own. Yes, there are those that are defending Coulter’s recent comments and exhibiting the knee-jerk fear of being seen as PC as you previously mentioned (full disclosure: I’m often times guilty of this myself).

But there are also plenty of conservatives willing to stand up and criticize Coulter for her remarks, not only this incident, but sometimes even when she hasn’t necessarily stepped over the line (e.g., her critique of the Jersey Girls and their use of the absolute moral authority card, which was spot on).

What I don’t like about this debate though is that it’s not just Coulter’s defenders that are going overboard here, but many of her critics are as well, to the point that they are beating a dead horse and accomplishing nothing. It was the same thing in the Foley case – he was dealt with swiftly and firmly, but for many that wasn’t enough. There just had to be a week long orgy of self-flagellation to show the world how much better we are than the left. Conservatives should have enough self-confidence in their movement to know in both cases they dealt with the situation properly, and then should move on instead of engaging in days and days of handwringing and pointless debate.

Besides, regardless of whether it’s a long, drawn out condmenation or a quick one before moving on to the next issue, the left isn’t going to cut us any slack either way. So why bother turning the issue into something bigger than it really is?

Thus, while I think you made an excellent point in that other post regarding the knee-jerk fear of being seen as PC, I think the knee-jerk fear of being seen as not rendering a forceful enough condemnation of remarks such as Coulter’s is just as bad. It does nothing but put us on defense, and if you’re on defense, you’re not on offense.

thirteen28 on March 6, 2007 at 4:58 PM

CyberCipher on March 6, 2007 at 3:54 PM

First, let me point out that in a war you don’t win it by being nicer than your opponant. 2nd, “lead by example” will get you to heaven, but it wont get you converts from a pool of godless liberals. 3rd, how has this “lead by example” philosophy been working for us?

I think you are missing the big picture. We all can argue the symantics of her word useage, but I believe there is an underlying reason she did it. Well, more than one.

1) It was a joke in a speech that was rife with comedy.
2) It illustrated a hypocrisy we are all familiar with.
3) It taught a lesson to those within the conservative party who got caught embracing PCness.

I’m sure there are more, but this all leads me to the big picture. Where on the political spectrum do moderates appear to be? In the middle? Leaning to the left or leaning to the right?

We conservatives can yell to the heavens and prove by action that we are moderate, but if the publics perception is that we are NAZI’s, then really, what does all our yelling accomplish? Nothing. All that means is the center has shifted decidedly to the left. The proof of that is in how many people have moved towards liberalism and are willing to accept ideas that were unthinkable years ago. The aclu defending nambla, lawyers for terrorists. They have accomplished this by using PCness to stifle dissent.

Example…..

2 kids on a see saw and the balance point is in the middle. Suddenly, side “A” kid allows 4 others kids on his side while side “B” kid does nothing. In order for the side “B” kid to balance the see saw, he must move the fulcrum point towards the “A” side. In our political spectrum, “A” are liberals and “B” are conservatives and the fulcrum is the percieved moderate center. We must get more weight on the “B” side so we can move the fulcrum back to center so everything is right with the world.

Ann’s role is the four extra kids. The perception of center is determined by the extremes people see from left to right and then they look to a point that is between the two.

Because the conservative movement is not extreme and the liberals are, the publics perception of moderation is skewed left. Because most people WANT to be moderate (neither overly offensive to either side) they focus on that percieved moderate center. Thusly, more people lean to the left and accept left leaning ideas and reject right leaning ideas, because the left leaning looks moderate and the right leaning looks extreme.

THAT is why we need Ann. She is the heavyweight we need to achieve a balance that is closer to reality.

csdeven on March 6, 2007 at 5:02 PM

…They have accomplished this by using PCness to stifle dissent…

csdeven on March 6, 2007 at 5:02 PM

Hmmm…dissent. I suppose that you might convince me that it is a key ingredient in the struggle. However, I should also remind you, at this point, that Mahatma Ghandi (and Martin Luther King Jr. after him) proved that dissent is most effective when it is carried out on a massive scale (with countless participants). These men also proved that dissent does not need to be violent, nor does it necessarily need to adopt the tactics of the enemy — it only needs to be unified, homogenious, ubiquitous, and stalwart. What say you?

CyberCipher on March 6, 2007 at 5:45 PM

wytammic,

Actually, it’s HotAir that plays everyone for suckers. All these posts about Ann just to get traffic.

Well, yeah. All of the posts are put up with the crazy idea that people will stop by and read them, regardless of the topic, which damned near everybody has been talking about.

Not much else posted here is all that interesting.

17 completely non-Coulter related posts in the last 24 hours, and you can’t find anything interesting? Maybe it’s time you took Hot Air off your reading list.

An opinion cannot be stated without you spouting off and telling someone to leave? Nice.

When that opinion is that this blog sucks and you don’t like the content, it’s merely good advice.

Pablo on March 6, 2007 at 5:49 PM

What say you?

CyberCipher on March 6, 2007 at 5:45 PM

Absolutely true. But conservatives aren’t doing that, as is evident in this Ann Coulter flap. I think part of the problem is that conservatives are not protected by the PC bible. Everything we do to try and make end roads gets attacked as politically uncorrect. Usually they (PC police) are distorting the facts.

csdeven on March 6, 2007 at 6:01 PM

Same, or safe. (need my coffee, LOL)

Jim Treacher on March 6, 2007 at 10:36 AM

Don’t look at me – I’m busy carrying water.

(How many keyboards – heh.)

John from WuzzaDem on March 6, 2007 at 6:16 PM

Hmmm…dissent. I suppose that you might convince me that it is a key ingredient in the struggle. However, I should also remind you, at this point, that Mahatma Ghandi (and Martin Luther King Jr. after him) proved that dissent is most effective when it is carried out on a massive scale (with countless participants). These men also proved that dissent does not need to be violent, nor does it necessarily need to adopt the tactics of the enemy — it only needs to be unified, homogenious, ubiquitous, and stalwart. What say you?

CyberCipher on March 6, 2007 at 5:45 PM

It helps to remember that both Ghandi and MLK were leading dissent against civilized, reasonable populations, the former against the British, the latter against a U.S. society in which the moonbat left was tiny and marginalized.

Such dissent nowadays is in the face of a large moonbat plurality which is far removed from civilized discourse.

thirteen28 on March 6, 2007 at 6:17 PM

Ann said faggot!!! Faggot, she said faggot, I heard her say faggot, oh know, what do I do now!!?? Ann, said faggot, not fag, or pussy-wuss or girlie-man, but faggot, F-A-G-G-O-T, faggot, FAGGOT!!!!! Now what??? Please, someone DO something, I mean she said faggot!!!

JackM on March 6, 2007 at 6:33 PM

Such dissent nowadays is in the face of a large moonbat plurality which is far removed from civilized discourse.

Good point.

Liberals are not to be debated, reasoned with, understood or tolerated. Liberals are to be defeated and laughed at.

JackM on March 6, 2007 at 6:44 PM

I’m not the one hanging around here making ignorant comments about how there isn’t anything here that’s worth a damn. If you think that way, why the hell are you still here?? Didn’t realize we were all here to please you, your royalness.

Well, now you do. Get with the program;)

wytammic on March 6, 2007 at 6:57 PM

Absolutely true.

No, it’s not. It worked in those cases because it was being used against opponents who had a basic sense of Christian fairness and justice to begin with. The struggle for equality of African Americans began 100 years earlier in the CHURCHES of America… Ghandi’s approach only worked against Great Britain. It didn’t work against his own population which descended into civil war, partition and his assassination.

Try Civil disobedience in a place like Saudi Arabia or Pakistan and we’ll see the results being passed out on DVD snuff films in Peshawar.

TheBigOldDog on March 6, 2007 at 7:39 PM

B*LLS!

thegreatbeast on March 6, 2007 at 7:41 PM

So… you’re equating Edward’s fixation with grooming to opposing the Vietnam war? Or are you saying that words have the same meaning forever and ever and “faggot” still means “bundle of sticks” in every situation…

You can’t justify bad behavior by pointing to other bad behavior. To pretend that something isn’t unacceptable now because people used to say it 30 and 40 years ago is stupid and wouldn’t justify my going around calling people “coloreds”.

Lehosh on March 6, 2007 at 12:21 PM

Great….now I can’t use the word “coloreds”

omnipotent on March 6, 2007 at 7:48 PM

omnipotent on March 6, 2007 at 7:49 PM

OOppsss…..my bad….

href=”http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/coloreds”>

omnipotent on March 6, 2007 at 7:50 PM

Last try.

Yes, you can call me a faggot for poor posting skills, I won’t cry.

BTW, ALLAH, where is the preview button (you;ve had months to help us slow folks, what’s up??? Are you too busy wathcing the View and disparaging your audience??)

omnipotent on March 6, 2007 at 7:55 PM

No, it’s not. It worked in those cases because it was being used against opponents who had a basic sense of Christian fairness and justice to begin with…

Try Civil disobedience in a place like Saudi Arabia or Pakistan…

TheBigOldDog on March 6, 2007 at 7:39 PM

Which leads to the next question, which is “Do you think that we here in the U.S. have finally descended to the depths of Saudi Arabia and/or Pakistan?” Because if we have, then we no longer have any option other than General Sherman’s doctrine of “total war.” I’m not quite ready to believe that about America just yet. Are you?

CyberCipher on March 6, 2007 at 10:35 PM

Exit question: What’s worse: John Kerry calling our troops dumb or Ann Coulter’s use of “faggot.”

Ann meant to say what she said; Kerry messed up his joke. His obvious target was Bush, not the troops. So it doesn’t really compare.

To be honest, I don’t think Ann’s remark was anti-gay, I really don’t.

She says she meant it to mean “wimp.” That’s like calling a gentile a “kike” and saying that you just meant that they were cheap. Wouldn’t you call that antisemitic?

Mark Jaquith on March 7, 2007 at 2:27 AM

“inappropitate” What a fag word.

dhimwit on March 7, 2007 at 6:15 AM

Which leads to the next question, which is “Do you think that we here in the U.S. have finally descended to the depths of Saudi Arabia and/or Pakistan?

You missed the point a bit. The issue is, it works against decent, honest, sympathetic opponents and you are appealing to their emotions, their highest ideals. As you pointed out, the ball was advanced 90-yards by the spilling of a lot of blood. The last 10-yards were earned by civil disobedience 100 years later.

The Left & Right in this country are moving farther apart every day. Go back and read about the long, long, lead up to the civil war. Does it sound familiar?

TheBigOldDog on March 7, 2007 at 6:36 AM

Man, I hate coming to the party late…

Tsk, tsk, tsk. All this fuss over words!

I don’t see the point of needless vulgarity, but neither do I see the problem with using mere words, apart from the potential, as is the case here, of communicating things that you didn’t want to.

Figger and naggot (I’d use the eeevil words, but I don’t want to get caught by some overactive text parser) are just dopey words.

Don’t let the PC police win this one, folks. Like the Muhammed cartoons, either all the pejoratives are cool, or they’re all off-limits.

To give you an idea, let’s ban the words: chalk, honky ghost, marshmallow, whitey, and milk not only as they pertain to Caucasians, but in their original context as well, because they ALWAYS offend me.

See where we’re headed?

DuffBeer on March 7, 2007 at 6:55 AM

Absolutely true. But conservatives aren’t doing that, as is evident in this Ann Coulter flap.

I missed how the above comment of mine turned into Ghandi, but I was speaking to the division within the conservative movement. Here we have Ann working towards the goal of a conservative america, but we have an entire segment of conservatives, including three candidates, rejecting her using PC speech. They are furthering the tactics of the left, by denouncing her for the word faggot, missing her context, and refusing to reaffirm her message against PCness.

Conservatives are split. Now these holier than thou conservatives aren’t split, but with all their PC action and words, what have they accomplished?

I have asked that question several times from these conservatives and I haven’t gotten NOT ONE REPLY listing the accomplishments using their “lead by example” tactics. I, on several occasions, have listed the motivating results of Ann’s tactics. The same is true with Rush, Reagan, etc. I have also shown how the left has taken the center away from us, and how conservatives are complicit.

I am still waiting and as long as those conservatives continue to be silent with the edvidence of their successes, their “lead by example” rhetoric is a waste of energy, because those of us whom they think are damaging the party, are never going to be swayed. Their argument is much like a fart in the wind. It has no substance and it stinks like crap.

Sorry if I got off the ghandi topic.

csdeven on March 7, 2007 at 8:45 AM

The Left & Right in this country are moving farther apart every day. Go back and read about the long, long, lead up to the civil war. Does it sound familiar?

TheBigOldDog on March 7, 2007 at 6:36 AM

I agree, but for the most part the right has remained static, while the left has moved into insane extremism. There are a few of us that want to move further to the right which in effect shifts the center back to the right. These “lead by example” conservatives, like most ideologs, believe their position is percieved as the center. HA!!! The center is perceived by america as the halfway point between the extreme left and the extreme right. When the extreme right is “lead by example” then the center is perceived to be waaaaaay to the left of where these conservatives have convinced themselves it is.

The finel segment of their erroneous thinking is centered on how the american people feel verses how they act when the PC monster is in play. We all know that most americans are conservative, but why don’t conservative candidates win all elections?

Because the PC beast cowers people into acting against their values because of the fear of being politically incorrect.

Ann is the slayer of the beast and those who oppose her, trash her, focus on the word and not the message, are feeding the beast along with the beasts owners (the liberals).

csdeven on March 7, 2007 at 9:05 AM

Well said csdeven. I will glad stand beside you in your foxhole when the s**t hits the fan.

RobertCSampson on March 7, 2007 at 10:08 AM

His obvious target was Bush, not the troops.

Uh, Mark? Bush stayed in school, got degrees from Harvard and Yale, better grades than Kerry and was elected POTUS. So how is the “Education, if you make the most of it, you study hard, and you do your homework and you make an effort to be smart, you can do well.” crack an obvious knock on Bush? 2 Ivy League degrees and he’s the freaking President. By anyone’s measure, that’s doing pretty well, isn’t it?

Pablo on March 7, 2007 at 10:08 AM

RobertCSampson on March 7, 2007 at 10:08 AM

Now we just need to convince the PC police within the conservative movement. But honestly, if they can’t figure this out, they wont be conservatives for very long. They will remove themselves from conservatism through stubborness. And fear of what the liberals might say about them if they open their mouths.

csdeven on March 7, 2007 at 1:13 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3