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

Yyyyyyaaaaaaawwwnnnnnnnnn…………

……(mmmgghhhmmmppphhh)……….

…….. mmmmmmmmm (snore)…

PinkyBigglesworth on March 6, 2007 at 4:53 AM

Michelle’s point that it’s mostly a matter of political stupidity is valid, but that only raises the question of what, actually, is politically astute these days.

I’ve had a sinking feeling for years now that the Right has been playing into the hands of the Left by letting them frame the terms of “civility” in public discourse. The fear of stepping outside the verbal boundaries set by the Left is so palpable and overwhelming now among the Right, that even the jocular use of two-syllable words can be career-enders. One need only observe the absolute, paralysing fear any conservative politician has when talking about race, for example, that might step even an inch outside the “approved by the Left” list of acceptable phrases.

Is this situation politically good for us? I doubt it.

Halley on March 6, 2007 at 5:01 AM

I’m glad to here about this. The good old free market can take care of this situation very well.

Companies to pull ads from Coulter’s Web site

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/03/05/coulter.ads/index.html

I observed three type of replies from conservatives re: Ann Coulter, ‘Friendship over Principle’, ‘Coulterbot Mania over Principle’ and ‘Like Reagan, Principles do Matter’.

I glad to see that many conservatives are the latter category.

Ann Coulters defense of her CPAC comments on Hannity & Colmes last night can be summed up in one word, P-A-T-H-E-T-I-C!

olympian2008 on March 6, 2007 at 5:27 AM

Who cares if moderates and independants think the Republican party is full of gay hating bigots? At least Ann Coulter won us a moral victory against Political Correctness!

Lehosh on March 6, 2007 at 6:15 AM

Colmes is a complete and utter moron.

Viper1 on March 6, 2007 at 7:32 AM

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

Actually, the worst is Isaiah Washington using the word and having to go to rehab for reprogramming. This was Ann’s whole point wasn’t it?

Valiant on March 6, 2007 at 8:01 AM

Ann’s best point is it’s not scary to insult liberals.

Ann is awesome.

JackM on March 6, 2007 at 8:12 AM

Does anyone know Ann’s e-mail? I can’t find it, and I want to tell her how great I think she is.

JackM on March 6, 2007 at 8:14 AM

I think it was reckless of Coulter to use that word in that venue. Other than that, she’s absolutely correct.

1. Edwards is a f*ggot, or punk-ass, if you will.
2. Only in a society dominated by social dogma can you get in such trouble for the use of a word.

Again, her timing was horrible. She brings up an important facet of america’s liberal slide by using a black-listed word, but because she did it at CPAC she tied conservative’s hands in supporting her.

unamused on March 6, 2007 at 8:29 AM

Thanks Ann for trying to bs us by saying it was only a “school yard taunt.” She is such a disgrace and I am so friggin sick of seeing her on TV as the “Conservative” voice. She is a disgrace.

zerodamage on March 6, 2007 at 8:33 AM

Edwards is doing a good job of ignoring Ann. He’s using it as a fund-raiser asking for “Coulter Cash”. He is a wuss!

ctmom on March 6, 2007 at 8:33 AM

Valiant,

Actually, the worst is Isaiah Washington using the word and having to go to rehab for reprogramming. This was Ann’s whole point wasn’t it?

That, and that Edwards is a faggot. Both.

Pablo on March 6, 2007 at 8:46 AM

“I don’t wanna get in the middle of this” – Bill O.

Was I the only warm-blooded male thinking that I wouldn’t mind being in the middle of that? :-)

Hootie on March 6, 2007 at 8:49 AM

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. They didn’t give him his party leadership position. It was the right. The same folks here that want Ann to drop dead.

spmat on March 6, 2007 at 9:01 AM

Why do they keep putting KP up with MM? KP’s not even in the same ballpark: intellectually, mentally, spiritually, or emotionally…
MM can take on bigger fish than KP. I suggest Maher, Franken, Moore…
MM can kick major booty for such a cute, petite chick.
And I say let Coulter run wild. She is a refreshing change from all the boring news.

PoliticallyIncorrectSandy on March 6, 2007 at 9:12 AM

She plays you guys for suckers and you can’t get enough of it. Keep it up.

Actually, it’s HotAir that plays everyone for suckers. All these posts about Ann just to get traffic. Not much else posted here is all that interesting.

wytammic on March 6, 2007 at 9:18 AM

Sorry Michelle, you are making far too big a deal about this. In doing so you are hurting conservatism. There is nothing wrong with disagreement and people look at humor from many different views. I took Ann’s remark exactly as she explained on H&C. Michelle, by you harping on and on about this you are giving the problem far too much air and hotair time.

My opinion is this. The only problem I see is the venue. AC could have picked a better place to drop that bomb. Your appearance on O’Reilly did nothing to mention any thing good which came out of the conference. You mentioned Regan, that is the past. State your point about Coulter and then get back to a positive position to further the cause.

Wade on March 6, 2007 at 9:18 AM

Stop it guys…don’t apologize for her. She screwed up on a grand scale and should NEVER be invited back to an official guest to CPAC or any other GOP event.

Get a talk show. The GOP doesn’t need her to speak for them. They need something, but it isn’t her.

tomas on March 6, 2007 at 9:23 AM

By the way, I couldn’t even finish watching Michelle’s video. I’m normally a huge fan, my daughter has met her, she is very polite, smart, etc … but this self righteous crap is ridiculous. If she thinks faggot (now the other “f” word) would be detrimental for her children to hear, she better not have them see some of Allahpundit’s perverted posts on HotAir.

You really are making yourselves look bad — like a bunch of whining, crying, babies. Obviously you are jealous of Ann. I wish you could see that there is room for both of you in the conservative movement. Grow up.

wytammic on March 6, 2007 at 9:29 AM

An MM/Coulter war would be a headache, but an MM/KP war? Heart-ache.

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

True. True.

Lawrence on March 6, 2007 at 9:32 AM

Critics of Ann Coulter are validating liberal hysteria.

Good work.

JackM on March 6, 2007 at 9:41 AM

I’m not the one to pick a fight with?

Was MM talking to Bill-O or KP? They where going along so good till the last second, MM complimented KP. KP basically said people should not be surprised with Ann after 10 years.

Than Michelle goes bat S@#*t. She had a crazy look in her eyes; don’t mess with the Malkin! I had flash backs to being married. Chilled to the bone I was. Bad a$$. ha ha ha, all 110 lbs of Malkin the Masher.

BTW Ann Coulter is a man, she has an Adams apple. She may be more even man the Edwards. The way she gesticulates and moves her head, that snobby nasal voice, makes me throw up a little in the back of my throat. Maher is a ugly dude and a pervert. They would make a great pair.

Children, calm calm. Three words Freedom of Speech. Even if it allows idiots like Coulter to say crazy, uncivil, undignified comments or Maher’s harsh rhetoric that Cheney is evil and Bush is a high functioning imbecile, its America, God Bless. Each appeal to a certain crowd, but neither further the discourse. Its just entertainment. However at least Maher can tell a joke.

Ann does not get it, she can’t tell a joke, but her ego is too big to accept it. She thinks she is clever. So she makes a Grey’s anatomy reference, you go to rehab for saying the six letter F word, because she wants to call Edwards a f#g%&t. That is a lame joke. She says its a school yard slam. Well we are adults and she admits it was childish. What about Mark Foley, the gay pedophile who went to rehab for alcohol. Did not know alcohol caused pedophilia. Its not funny either.

Even Ann’s fans say she writes well but speaking she says dumb and gratuitously mean things. The stereotype of conservatives is they are mean, uncompassionate, materialistic, contempt the poor and are bigoted haters. Coulter is the poster child for those who hold that stereotype. She is the Liberals best friend. She proves THEIR POINT. Either way its a WASTE OF TIME. IT ADDS NOTHING.

I guess life would be better for YOU with out a free-press or freedom of speech, only allowing news you want to be heard or seen and people to act as you approve? I think they call it North Korea. Take the good with the Bad.

Ann Coulter has long ago given up her position as a serious person. Forget civil, she is a shrew. Maher is at least funny, but he does go on too much bashing, but that is his right, just like it’s Coulters right. Don’t buy her book or watch his HBO show. That is what I do.

What does this have to do with world wide Muslim Islamic radicals, security, health, economy, environment, national debt, trade….. We have real problems like going broke by 2024. How about that. What another tax cut for the rich. I am going to vote for the person that says they are going to raise taxes. Its insanity if we don’t along with massive spending cuts.

gmcjetpilot on March 6, 2007 at 9:45 AM

Though I still believe Ann shouldn’t have said it (you can’t “prove” your point with others’ outrage if they all disagree), I do see her point.

I can’t speak for everyone, but in my childhood, the term was used to call someone a wimp and nothing else. We didn’t even know anything about homosexuality, but we knew that word and would have taken it the way Coulter is claiming she meant it.

And really, sometimes a joke is funnier if you don’t say the word and simply imply it. That way you can make your point without offending anyone. People who are offended don’t tend to listen to whatever point you might be trying to make.

She could have just said, “I’d talk about Edwards, but I’m not sure there’s anything I can say about him that won’t get me stuck in rehab.”

But she didn’t, and now we have all of this for no good reason.

Esthier on March 6, 2007 at 9:46 AM

Michelle says: “I’m not the person to be picking a fight with”

Firecracker

Whoot!

Lawrence on March 6, 2007 at 9:47 AM

Allah, please, no more threads regarding this. As Michelle pointed out, this one 15 second sound bite has taken the focus away from all the good that came out of CPAC.

I’d almost rather hear some news about Anna Nicole than anything else on Ann Coulter.

dalewalt on March 6, 2007 at 9:51 AM

Critics are validating AC’s thinking about herself. If you can’t keep yourself from speaking this way in public…i don’t want you around.

tomas on March 6, 2007 at 9:52 AM

Today we aren’t allowed to say anything offensive, even when the point we are making is against the cultural censorship that we arent allow to offend anybody!

What censorship? Thre clip was played on news channels and here on HotAir. It’s cultural disapproval.

aengus on March 6, 2007 at 9:53 AM

gmcjetpilot on March 6, 2007 at 9:45 AM

Smart, gmcjetpilot, smart. Pick on ‘the boss’.

dalewalt on March 6, 2007 at 9:54 AM

Bottom Line:

Coulter made a high-brow joke that very few got.

It fell flat because it was received as tasteless.

Good initiative, Bad judgement.

Just adimit it, Ann, and let’s move on.

Lawrence on March 6, 2007 at 9:56 AM

MM:

Yes, there is political stupidity here, and it’s double barreled.

First, if, as you all say, AC is a loose cannon, a self-promoting media vampire, a cynical fraud, why in hell did you all have her at the CPAC? That’s very duh.
Second, there’s the spectical of the entire right punditry running from her. This impresses nobody, not the left who don’t like you anyway. And to a lot of us rank and file on the right it looks like downright cowardice. It makes you look like fag–oops–weak spinless losers. Not the sort you’d want in your foxhole, know what I mean?

Sometimes loyalty trumps principle, as noble Stand By Your Man Hillary proved.

dhimwit on March 6, 2007 at 9:57 AM

Critics of Ann Coulter are validating liberal hysteria.

Good work.

JackM on March 6, 2007 at 9:41 AM

So far I have posted several thousand words on this subject. I want to thank JackM for making me look foolish by summing up my argument in 1 sentence. Kudos

Honestly, I am stunned that MM, the rest of the Hot Air folk and many of the regular commenters are so up in arms. Please step back and rethink the issue. It’s a stab at political correctness plain and simple and I applaud her for it. After all, thats what makes me a conservative, my desire to end the era of liberal tolerance which is really tolerant of lots of bad behavior just not Ann’s.

In the end, I will still adore MM and respect everyone here regardless of their beliefs on Ann’s methods. I just hope they are still with me in the aforementioned battles. I would also hope they would take it down a notch in disrespecting the rest of us who think Ann has it right. Maybe it is a grey and not a black and white issue.

RobertCSampson on March 6, 2007 at 10:01 AM

I’d almost rather hear some news about Anna Nicole than anything else on Ann Coulter.

DUDE. Don’t tempt the media…

Slublog on March 6, 2007 at 10:15 AM

So far I have posted several thousand words on this subject. I want to thank JackM for making me look foolish by summing up my argument in 1 sentence. Kudos

Honestly, I am stunned that MM, the rest of the Hot Air folk and many of the regular commenters are so up in arms. Please step back and rethink the issue. It’s a stab at political correctness plain and simple and I applaud her for it. After all, thats what makes me a conservative, my desire to end the era of liberal tolerance which is really tolerant of lots of bad behavior just not Ann’s.

In the end, I will still adore MM and respect everyone here regardless of their beliefs on Ann’s methods. I just hope they are still with me in the aforementioned battles. I would also hope they would take it down a notch in disrespecting the rest of us who think Ann has it right. Maybe it is a grey and not a black and white issue.

Being a conservative doesn’t mean defending what should not be defended. If Bill Maher was speaking at a democratic event and said those things would then be equally compared to AC. She screwed up man as did CPAC for inviting such a wild personality. They got what they paid for.

tomas on March 6, 2007 at 10:19 AM

Bottom Line:

Coulter made a high-brow joke that very few got.

It fell flat because it was received as tasteless.

Good initiative, Bad judgement.

Just adimit it, Ann, and let’s move on.

Lawrence on March 6, 2007 at 9:56 AM

If “faggot” is high brow, do I want to know what low brow is? Probably not….

honora on March 6, 2007 at 10:26 AM

I’m just wondering…has anyone made any demands of the democratic leadership to distance themselves Bill Maher’s comments about VP Cheney?

Nah, I guess not. After all, that’s permitted under the 1st amendment…as long as you’re a liberal (3rd Rule of Liberalism in action!)

armyvet on March 6, 2007 at 10:30 AM

Being a conservative doesn’t mean defending what should not be defended. If Bill Maher was speaking at a democratic event and said those things would then be equally compared to AC. She screwed up man as did CPAC for inviting such a wild personality. They got what they paid for.

tomas on March 6, 2007 at 10:19 AM

I predict Ann will be back at CPAC next year by popular demand. And I would defend anybody who is trying to defend the First Amendment against political correctness and keep me out of the re-education camp rehab center, for saying what I think.

Maxx on March 6, 2007 at 10:32 AM

I have read all the comments and can only shake my head in an attempt to clear out the cobwebs. One of the reasons I had to leave the left is because I couldn’t keep the words I shouldn’t say and the words I could say separate. When I was a child I learned words will not hurt me only actions will. I think it is time you so called conservatives quit playing the game by the left’s rules. If a word offends someone it is their problem.

Grayzel on March 6, 2007 at 10:32 AM

I’m no the one to be picking a fight with! — Michelle

She’s strong, but she’s SCRAPPY…

Mazztek on March 6, 2007 at 10:33 AM

One of the reasons I had to leave the left is because I couldn’t keep the words I shouldn’t say and the words I could say separate.

It might be same to go back, because a lot of them were fine with Marcotte’s rantings.

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

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

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

I’m not going to address the hypocrisy of specific conservatives on this topic.

I am however, dissapointed that many conservatives have failed to back up Ann on the concept behind her comment. They have attacked Ann because of their fear of the PC conditioning that has permeated the conservative party.

If anyone beilieves that 3 republican candidates disavowed her because they were trying salvage their standing with the left, well, that’s just silly. They disavowed her because they are pandering to the people who will vote for them in a primary. That would be conservatives. They clearly are keenly aware that PC is run amok in the party and must address that in order to keep good standing. A lot of people are comparing Ann as the antithisis of Reagan (many have surprised me and that saddens me deeply. I can only hope they will take a lesson from this). There are many differences between the two that makes those comparisons null and void. Firstly, Ann is not a political candidate. The list goes on and on. Figure it out yourself, because I avoid explaining stuff to lazy thinkers. Lazy thinkers just want to feel good about a concept. They get the message then turn around and not apply it. This is the reason that Ann uses satire and seemingly vile insults like “faggot”. It engages those who are outraged to the point where they pick up their holier than thou cause. Now they are responsible for it. Then she explains what she really meant and those that opposed her now have to own their mistake.

People may not admit it here, but how many of you who refuse to admit your mistake publically, will never again make the mistake of being knee-jerk to a word that violates PC? The funny thing is, WE all know, because we are conservatives that PC is the mortal enemy of our ideology, because Ann and others have explained this PLAINLY many, many, many, many, times.

This is Ann’s value. She played on the exact weakness she saw and those who have the weakness obliged her and showed it again.

Back to our three candidates who disavowed her remarks (as they need to if they want the votes of the PC conditioned conservatives). Ask yourselves a question. If any of the three would have led the party by explaining Ann’s point while not attacking her for the word, would you have respect for him or would you attack him like you attacked Ann?

This BEGS the comparison to Ronald Reagan!

If any comparison should be made to Reagan, it should be made that he believed in the 11th commandment. AND Reagan did what our three candidates did not so which was LEAD with the conservative explanation of Ann’s comments. I am positive he would have approached this much like Hannity did. He did not attack Ann, but explained her point in the way our morally offended conservatives can understand. With the same exact way it has been said to conservatives for years. Yeah, yeah, yeah, I know, she should have said it that way again. Blah! It hasn’t worked yet, why would ONE MORE TIME make a difference? It wouldn’t, but I guarentee you it does now. As I pointed out above, many people around here will NEVER make that mistake again and will be more cognisant of their use of the PC mentality in the furture.

The only candidate that I think has an opportunity to pull his comments out of the fire it is Mitt.

“It was an offensive remark. Governor Romney believes all people should be treated with dignity and respect.”

He did not get out on a limb and condemn Ann. This makes it possible for him to grow some balls and reaffirm the concept that Ann was getting at. As I said in my first response on Mitt’s remark, it was a mistake, but he can still get a win if he leads like a true conservative would.

Thanks Ann! You did a great service to help define the true values of what a conservative believes. You opened eyes to the blind and strengthen those who fight along side of you, allbeit, with a more soothing tone. I appreciate her continued selfless sacrifice of her reputation to the cause. I just hope our conservative leaders appreciate it, because that relieves them of the duty.

That reminds me to voice my undying appreciation to our troops who sacrifice on my behalf so that I don’t have to. God Bless everyone of you, your battle buddies, family, friends, and supporters.

csdeven on March 6, 2007 at 10:49 AM

I am however, dissapointed that many conservatives have failed to back up Ann on the concept behind her comment. They have attacked Ann because of their fear of the PC conditioning that has permeated the conservative party.

Actually, no. But nice try on the Matt Parkman routine.

Slublog on March 6, 2007 at 10:56 AM

It’s interesting that some of the biggest criticism of Ann’s word choice is coming from women. Seems like it was more offensive because a woman dared to utter a foul word in public.

The GOP already has a reputation of being less than welcoming to gays so I don’t think her use of the term would win or lose any supporters. Ann is known as having kind of a liberatarian streak as well so this should not be unexpected coming from her. While it is an uncomfortable word choice, I support her right to say anything she likes.

Same for Kerry or any other politician, just be prepared to respond to critics.

MRegine on March 6, 2007 at 10:58 AM

I think Ann defended herself quite well. Frankly, until watching this clip I had virtually no context to put it in outside of knowing it was a reference to the Isaiah Washington incident and that it happened at CPAC. I had no idea that the rest of her speech was mostly humor, and completely left out was the whole speal she made previously on not being anti-gay.

Michelle has a point about young people (I’m thinking kids, frankly — she mentioned hers on her blog) at the conference. Maybe CPAC can put a movie rating system in place for speakers.

In the end, however, I think all the hysteria on both the Left and the Right merely proved Ann’s point.

philmon on March 6, 2007 at 11:09 AM

I predict Ann will be back at CPAC next year by popular demand. And I would defend anybody who is trying to defend the First Amendment against political correctness and keep me out of the re-education camp rehab center, for saying what I think.

It isn’t political correctness, it is commons sense.

tomas on March 6, 2007 at 11:17 AM

If “faggot” is high brow, do I want to know what low brow is…

honora on March 6, 2007 at 10:26 AM

Bill Maher.

JackM on March 6, 2007 at 11:18 AM

Just look at the comments in these threads.

The liberals should give Ann Coulter their most prestigious and coveted award for doing more to help the liberal cause than ANY Hollywood celebrity could EVER do. Coulter has managed to DEEPLY divide the constituency of conservatism. For the liberals, it is more than they could have possibly hoped for. They must be giddy with glee over at KOS and HuffPo.

CyberCipher on March 6, 2007 at 11:22 AM

How many keyboards a day do you go through, csdeven?

Jim Treacher on March 6, 2007 at 11:24 AM

csdeven on March 6, 2007 at 10:49 AM

I have two problems. She did not specifically call Edwards a faggot. Secondly, everybody is arguing about the previous. Let me point out something. A lot of words are offensive such as STFU, pussy, whore, screw, fucker, mutherfucker, bitchslapping, nigga, gay, white trash, e.t.c. Most of these words refer to sexual actvity. STFU might mean keep quiet as if you having sex. Calling somebody a pussy is refering to a woman’s genital. I could easily explain faggot to any young person than any of these words. Most of you use them in posting comments. We should arguing about the need for civil argument without these words. Hotair commenters can encourage such atmosphere by watching they write and refraining from Ad hominem attacks. Even the mighty spotless allah engages in Ad Hominem attacks.

Ouabam on March 6, 2007 at 11:26 AM

Actually, it’s HotAir that plays everyone for suckers. All these posts about Ann just to get traffic. Not much else posted here is all that interesting.

wytammic on March 6, 2007 at 9:18 AM

Don’t let the door hit you on your way out.

Rick on March 6, 2007 at 11:30 AM

“I’m not the person to be picking a fight with”

Loved it!!

“Firecracker”, I guess!

Chuck on March 6, 2007 at 11:32 AM

AC is brilliant. Her points about speech are spot on and conservatives who are made uncomfortable by her need to get over it and make an attempt to see her point. Coulter’s beginning to sound more like Lenny Bruce and, unfortunately, queasy conservatives who just wanna get along are hiding the children.

Drum on March 6, 2007 at 11:32 AM

AC is laughing all the way to the bank.

Rick on March 6, 2007 at 11:34 AM

Ann said the word “faggot”, and I’m gonna get my panties up into sucha twist, you’ll ALL be sorry, you just wait, you’ll be sorry alright……..

JackM on March 6, 2007 at 11:34 AM

Actually, no. But nice try on the Matt Parkman routine.

Slublog on March 6, 2007 at 10:56 AM

It’s real easy to use drive by comments but do you have the substance behind it to try and make your case specifically point by point? I did.

You can’t really expect me, or anyone to be swayed by such unsubstantive remarks, can you?

csdeven on March 6, 2007 at 11:39 AM

MM’s points about Reagan are excellent and should be replayed and replayed and replayed. Moreover, Coulter would agree with her and has been saying the same thing for years, albeit in her own way, which leads to the obvious reality: If you want Reaganesque rhetoric, or at least rhetoric that lifts up and inspires, then you don’t go to Ann Coulter. You go to Ann Coulter when you want the same truths put across in a spirit of in your face, take no prisoners. The metro-sexual morality police drummed her off of NRO and they’re trying to do it elsewhere, and if they ever succeed (they won’t) we’ll be the worse for it.

Drum on March 6, 2007 at 11:43 AM

You can’t really expect me, or anyone to be swayed by such unsubstantive remarks, can you?

I don’t expect to sway you. My point was that unless you can read minds, don’t assume motives.

Slublog on March 6, 2007 at 11:45 AM

Heck with the cage match. I think this calls for a DDR-off.

At any rate, be careful Michelle. She has ‘powers’.

Readymade on March 6, 2007 at 11:49 AM

We should arguing about the need for civil argument without these words.

Ouabam on March 6, 2007 at 11:26 AM

You could not have read every comment that I have written on this, but I agree with that. I have said so ad nauseam. FOR SOME PEOPLE. People like MM, Laura, and political candidates specifically.
Not for people like Ann. That is her role. Brutal speak that motivates lazy thinking. She called Edwards a faggot which to her meant sissy, but the context was the Isaiah Washington has to go to rehab insanity.

It’s her role to do what she does and it’s respectable persons role to speak more softly.

It is not the conservatives role to carry the lefts PC water by ignoring the attack on PC in favor of being PC against a fellow conservative.

csdeven on March 6, 2007 at 11:49 AM

what I find fascinating is that so many people here lack a basic understanding of “things you do in polite company”. Ann’s Joke was a mediocre “Dennis Millerism” at best, and no it did not go over my head, it was just crass and embarassing.

What would Coulter have to say to get you guys to finally admint, “Wow, that’s really not something a grown up should say at a televised conservative event.” I’m serious, I’d really like to know. What would she have to say? Whose death does she have to call for, what tragedy should she satirize, and which slur does she have to bust out for her next headline? Do you people really have no idea that there are certain things not fit to say in mixed company, no matter how much TRVTH they contain? Do you really think that social customs are so worthless that we can – nay we should, for the good of the 1st Amendment!!! – say anything that pops into our head?

And please, stop pointing at left comedians and shrieking like children, “Awwe, but they got to say the potty word!!” Grow up. You can’t justify bad behavior by pointing to other bad behavior.

Lehosh on March 6, 2007 at 11:50 AM

I don’t expect to sway you. My point was that unless you can read minds, don’t assume motives.

Slublog on March 6, 2007 at 11:45 AM

Asking me to “don’t assume motives” is trying to sway me. I have no problem with that, but I’d like to see you make the case with more than that.

My point: To me, the actions reveal what the mind is thinking. Mind reading would be something entirely different.

You’re up.

csdeven on March 6, 2007 at 11:54 AM

Who cares if moderates and independants think the Republican party is full of gay hating bigots?

They already think that. That’s what makes this all this so ridiculous. We’re not winning any points with the other side by going after Ann as viciously as some of you have. It looks like a lot of preening self indulgent superiority to me. Someone mentioned her having no ‘justification’ to use the word faggot. Since when do you need justification to use a word? It’s a nasty word. It’s very insulting and inflammatory, and someone in proximity may punch you for using it, but it’s still just a word. Ann fouled up using CPAC as a venue to make that joke, but you folks jumping up and down that she even SAID that word, worry me more. AP made the comment that she’s playing people who are defending her; I’m not being played and I am not defending her. I haven’t even listened to her explanation. I’m just amazed at the fainting couch apoplexy that some in these threads have reached. She harmed our movement? We’re slandered every day for tenets of the Christian faith that some people adhere too a bit more than others. Fine, she gave them some ammunition, but do any of you actually believe they wouldn’t find something else to screech about? You think ‘banning’ her from the party is going to make the left like us? And what are we banning her for? Using a pejorative that makes people uncomfortable in a very public venue. I had a woman at the grocery store yesterday hit me in the elbow with her cart because she was trying to cut me off to the 10 item or less aisle. The checker, to her credit, took me first. The woman called me a f***ing d**khead and stalked off to another aisle. She didn’t even get thrown out of the store. I have some outrage on that one, but only because my elbow still hurts. I still think this entire business with AC is being blown way out of proportion.

austinnelly on March 6, 2007 at 11:55 AM

austinnelly on March 6, 2007 at 11:55 AM

Wait… now Independents and Moderates are “the other side”? Wow, conservatives sure have conceded a whole lot of ground since I joined up.

Lehosh on March 6, 2007 at 11:57 AM

austinnelly on March 6, 2007 at 11:55 AM

Wait… now Independents and Moderates are “the other side”? Wow, conservatives sure have conceded a whole lot of ground since I joined up.

Lehosh on March 6, 2007 at 11:57 AM

Were these people carrying on like this when Dick Armey made his “Barney Fag” comment? He was an actual Republican politician so I guess there was ten times the outrage opposed to what some sarcastic pundit said in the course of a joke, no?

Well then, is it possible that Ann makes some of these “conservative” pundits and bloggers feel kind of jealous and small because they are afraid to speak out on the things that Ann is fearless about? Could it be when they heard her say “faggot” they actually took it personally because of the feelings of low self-esteem that Ann has given them?

I think this is especially the case with your “weenie righty” types; the Rich Lowry types who fight pander with pander and have nothing left to offer on an issue once Ann has had her say. Like on the Jersey Girls thing. After Coulter had her say on that there was absolutely nothing left for the righty bloggers to say on the matter. She castrates these pundits right along with her liberal targets.

Perchant on March 6, 2007 at 11:59 AM

Wow Perchant, on the nose!

All of politeness – nay, society at large – is built upon the shoulders of jealousy over what we wish we could say!

The Universe has meaning now.

Lehosh on March 6, 2007 at 12:01 PM

See all your points, austinelly.

And raise you that all the main Republican candidates are following Howard Dean’s demand they disavow her statements.

How are our guys, following orders their leader, a good thing?

Chuck on March 6, 2007 at 12:04 PM

Asking me to “don’t assume motives” is trying to sway me. I have no problem with that, but I’d like to see you make the case with more than that.

Sorry, but I’m not one of those who believes verbiage = quality. I simply believe you’re ascribing bad motives to those who disagree with you instead of acknowledging that some of us who have criticized Ann Coulter’s remarks actually believe what we say.

Slublog on March 6, 2007 at 12:05 PM

How are our guys, following orders fromtheir leader, a good thing?

Sorry!!

Chuck on March 6, 2007 at 12:07 PM

It is not the conservatives role to carry the lefts PC water by ignoring the attack on PC in favor of being PC against a fellow conservative.

csdeven on March 6, 2007 at 11:49 AM

I do not oppose what you are saying or dispute Ann’s explanation. You don’t have to show people show your genitals to prove that you are not a female or male. If they cant make appropariate inference, the story ends there. Conservatives feel that they have to do this to avoid being relagated to something extreme. We are all trying to prove she is not Reagan. The problem that we are facing todya was not what Reagan faced. However, I personally do not attribute the source of my conservative ideals to Reagan. My conservative ideals came about as a result of my enviromnment–my family. My beef is,”if language has deteriorated, we can start at home to make amends.”

Ouabam on March 6, 2007 at 12:09 PM

>”Do you people really have no idea that there are certain things not fit to say in mixed company.”

“Mixed company”? A bunch of Republican politicos? Jeez, it wasn’t Sunday dinner with Pastor Jedidiah.

40 years ago William F. Buckley lost his cool on live tv with Gore Vidal, calling him a “queer” and threatening to “knock you in the goddamned teeth.” Buckley was mortified for having lost his cool — something one oughtn’t do in “mixed company.” But understand (read the transcript) what he lost his temper over (Vidal’s opposition to the Vietnam war). Moreover, Vidal pulled the old Nazi trump and Buckley wouldn’t stand for it. (Funny how in a more polite time a duel would have been called for. And Buckley was justified and should have punched Vidal — those were tense times.)

Coulter has always been addressing these same issues (liberal hypocrisy, double-standards, tyranny, yearning for totalitarianism), but instead of losing her cool she often couches similar sentiments as Buckley’s in speech that makes us squirm.

We’ve become a wussy culture, and she could have been speaking to many of us.

Drum on March 6, 2007 at 12:13 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

>After Coulter had her say on that there was absolutely nothing left for the righty bloggers to say on the matter. She castrates these pundits right along with her liberal targets.

No kidding! They still can’t get over that a large portion of Treason was in defense of Joe McCarthy’s having seen commies for what they were and where they resided. No matter that everything she said was on the mark. “Oh, gee, gosh, why did she … oh man, McCarthy? … boy, golly, I wish … can’t we move on …”

The same goes with her prior book, Slander, which ought to be made a CPAC textbook about what to expect when “dialoguing” with liberals. Alas, many conservative still blame themselves whenever the “dialogue” turns sour. “Was it something I said?” A lesson from Christopher Hitchens might be in order: flip the bird on occasion. When in Rome …

Drum on March 6, 2007 at 12:28 PM

Sorry, but I’m not one of those who believes verbiage = quality.
Slublog on March 6, 2007 at 12:05 PM

Sorry, I’m not the type that believes drive by snipes have any weight on important issues. So, I challenge them. And I notice you didn’t adress your expectation for me to change how I feel and then say you don’t expect me to be swayed. How do you expect any serious discussion, regardless of the amout of words used, when you don’t address that error?

I simply believe you’re ascribing bad motives to those who disagree with you instead of acknowledging that some of us who have criticized Ann Coulter’s remarks actually believe what we say.

I do believe some people believe Ann’s remark was over the top. I do too. The difference I see is that I don’t get hung up on the word when it was clear she had an important message. Others are completely immersed in it and dismiss the message over the word. That by definition is PCness.

csdeven on March 6, 2007 at 12:32 PM

>So… you’re equating Edward’s fixation with grooming to opposing the Vietnam war?

No. I guess I didn’t make my point. I’m saying that Coulter’s approach is frankly quite light-hearted when you see what Buckley was driven to. Her point wasn’t John Edwards, but speech and liberal one-way morality codes.

Moreover, Buckley’s wasn’t bad behavior! He should have punched Vidal! I mean good grief, they were in the middle of the worst times, it was the Democratic convention, the war was the central issue, and Vidal called Buckley a “crypto-Nazi” for supporting the effort and not wanting to embolden the enemy with hypocritical speech at home. Sound familiar?

Drum on March 6, 2007 at 12:35 PM

Ouabam,

I agree with lots of that.

Conservatives feel that they have to do this to avoid being relagated to something extreme.
Ouabam on March 6, 2007 at 12:09 PM

I’d LOVE to go over my “ruler” analogy, but I’ve done it twice on two of the Ann Coulter threads. But I’ve said it enough. Suffice it to say that having some extreme elements in the conservative movement has a balancing effect on peoples perception of what “moderate” is. Somewhat like putting a fat kid (Oh oh, do I have to go to rehab now?) on a see-saw when you have lots of weight on the opposite side. Ann is the fat kid.

csdeven on March 6, 2007 at 12:38 PM

Sorry, I’m not the type that believes drive by snipes have any weight on important issues. So, I challenge them. And I notice you didn’t adress your expectation for me to change how I feel and then say you don’t expect me to be swayed. How do you expect any serious discussion, regardless of the amout of words used, when you don’t address that error?

What error? Again, it was not my intention to sway you. If you felt it was, that’s your issue, not mine. Trying to make me responsible for your expectations is ridiculous.

As for the “drive by snipes,” comment, the only reason I kept my comment so succinct is that despite your claim of substance, I have seen very little of it in your comments.

Slublog on March 6, 2007 at 12:38 PM

We’ve become a wussy culture, and she could have been speaking to many of us.

Drum on March 6, 2007 at 12:13 PM

“WUSSY”. Smarrrrrrrt! You learned the lesson, cause if you had said faggot, you’d be headed to rehab!

hahaha

csdeven on March 6, 2007 at 12:40 PM

You can’t justify bad behavior by pointing to other bad behavior.
Lehosh on March 6, 2007 at 12:21 PM

Why? Is that any worse than hating PC yet engaging in it?

csdeven on March 6, 2007 at 12:42 PM

“I can’t spare this man woman–he She fights.”

TheBigOldDog on March 6, 2007 at 12:43 PM

Slublog,

I really fouled the block quotes up. I’ll repost it correctly.

Sorry, but I’m not one of those who believes verbiage = quality.
Slublog on March 6, 2007 at 12:05 PM

Sorry, I’m not the type that believes drive by snipes have any weight on important issues. So, I challenge them. And I notice you didn’t adress your expectation for me to change how I feel and then say you don’t expect me to be swayed. How do you expect any serious discussion, regardless of the amout of words used, when you don’t address that error?

I simply believe you’re ascribing bad motives to those who disagree with you instead of acknowledging that some of us who have criticized Ann Coulter’s remarks actually believe what we say.

I do believe some people believe Ann’s remark was over the top. I do too. The difference I see is that I don’t get hung up on the word when it was clear she had an important message. Others are completely immersed in it and dismiss the message over the word. That by definition is PCness.

csdeven on March 6, 2007 at 12:45 PM

Yeah, HTML is teh suxxor.

Your points are fair, but I think Ann obscures her message with her need to be shocking. She’s a smart lady who has written some smart stuff in the past. She’s just not doing herself or her image any favors with the B.S.

Slublog on March 6, 2007 at 12:47 PM

it was not my intention to sway you.
Slublog on March 6, 2007 at 12:38 PM

Oh, I get it. You were speaking to hear yourself speak.

Rhetoric. Why didn’t you say so? I understand rhetoric. As do most of us.

If that’s the case, then I’ll ignore your comments.

csdeven on March 6, 2007 at 12:48 PM

If that’s the case, then I’ll ignore your comments.

Feel free. No one’s making you read them.

Slublog on March 6, 2007 at 12:49 PM

JEEZZE!! Did it again!

csdeven on March 6, 2007 at 12:51 PM

No worries, I got what you were saying.

Slublog on March 6, 2007 at 12:51 PM

Feel free. No one’s making you read them.

Slublog on March 6, 2007 at 12:49 PM

True, but until I understand someones intentions I give everyone the courtesy of reading their comments. Especially when they are directed to me. Before I jump to comclusions in the future, I’ll try to clarify your comment. Especially IF you respond to me.

Fair enough?

csdeven on March 6, 2007 at 12:53 PM

Far enough

Slublog on March 6, 2007 at 12:54 PM

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

Slublog on March 6, 2007 at 12:54 PM

Don’t let the door hit you on your way out.

wytammic on March 6, 2007 at 12:55 PM

wytammic on March 6, 2007 at 12:55 PM

What?

Slublog on March 6, 2007 at 12:57 PM

Wait… now Independents and Moderates are “the other side”? Wow, conservatives sure have conceded a whole lot of ground since I joined up.

Well, they’re not conservatives, and they don’t reliably vote for the same things we do. So, I suppose saying they’re on the ‘other side’ could be too adversarial, yet at the same time, I won’t concede they are on anyones side. They flop back forth as the wind blows. As far as conservatives conceding ground, yes, I agree. We’ve conceded a lot of ground. There seem to be many who feel quite comfortable embracing speech codes and having a litmus test of things you can and can’t say in order to be a conservative. Ann C. was all right to have on our side until she opened up the ‘forbidden word’ list and now she needs to be thrown out. My point remains Ann’s judgement of venue was wrong. Don’t invite her back. No problem. But let’s not get out of control with ‘forbidden words’ and the like.

austinnelly on March 6, 2007 at 12:57 PM

Don’t let the door hit you on your way out.

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

What?

Slublog on March 6, 2007 at 12:57 PM

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

wytammic on March 6, 2007 at 12:58 PM

oops … I mean the other “f” word

wytammic on March 6, 2007 at 1:00 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3