Well, the Paris Hilton of American politics is at it AGAIN:

GOP candidates repudiate Coulter
WASHINGTON, March 3 (UPI) -- Three top GOP presidential candidates Saturday repudiated best-selling U.S. author Ann Coulter for calling former Sen. John Edwards, D-N.C., a "faggot."

Coulter, speaking at the Conservative Political Action Conference Friday, brought Edwards' name up during her remarks.

"It turns out you have to go into rehab if you use the word 'faggot,' so I'm kind of at an impasse -- I can't really talk about Edwards," she said.

"I would never insult gays by suggesting that they are like John Edwards," she said. "That would be mean."


link

link 2

Apparently, Coulter also quipped about Black Republicans, "Our blacks are better than their blacks."

To their credit, GOP presidential candidates, John McCain, Rudy Giuliani and Mitt Romney (whom Coulter has thrown her support to) all quickly issued statements condemning Coulter's remarks. Giuliani said, "The comments were completely inappropriate and there should be no place for such name-calling in political debate."

Coulter has previously made remarks questioning the sexual orientation of Al Gore, Hillary Clinton and Bill Clinton.

The question for debate is:

1. Were Ann Coulter's remarks about John Edwards a totally out-of-bounds slur or just a joke that is being deliberately misinterpreted?

2. Do you consider Coulter a serious political commentator or a partisan bomb-thrower?

1. Were Ann Coulter's remarks about John Edwards a totally out-of-bounds slur or just a joke that is being deliberately misinterpreted?


Somebody , claimed I was a mud slinger in another thread because I was pointing out hypocrisy. If they want to see mud slinging they need to look at Coulter. When you use name calling it means you have no substantial argument and shows a lack of intelligence. Like I said previously, I am glad she doesn't like Giuliani.

2. Do you consider Coulter a serious political commentator or a partisan bomb-thrower?

She's worse than a bomb-thrower. You can never have any kind of unity with these kind of remarks. Just as bad as Bill Maher agreeing it was a shame the attack on Cheney was not successful.

1. Were Ann Coulter's remarks about John Edwards a totally out-of-bounds slur or just a joke that is being deliberately misinterpreted?

Because Ann is "indulged" and is a FOX News analyst or whatever they call her, her opinion on anything and anybody is thought to be above reproach. I can hardly listen to her for longer than five minutes, but I have noticed that she has lowered her " political repartee" to personal attacks! Ann Coulter has a real mean streak for which she is paid as a news analyst to reveal at will. No one has to deliberately misinterpret Ann Coulter; she says exactly what she means, and she was definitely rude and out-of-bounds with these remarks regarding John Edwards!

2. Do you consider Coulter a serious political commentator or a partisan bomb-thrower?

It's hard to classify her nowadays! "Serious political commentator" is a label I never would have given her even in the beginning when she appeared to be kinder. "Partisan bomb-thrower" is probably the nicest thing I can possibly say about her!

1. Were Ann Coulter's remarks about John Edwards a totally out-of-bounds slur or just a joke that is being deliberately misinterpreted?

It was a move to make money, no more or no less. If someone actually had some desire to engage the political system and of course its respective populous with any degree of honesty for instance such acts probably would never occur, I can hold better debates after a keg of beer.

2. Do you consider Coulter a serious political commentator or a partisan bomb-thrower?

She is of a type of organism that has found a successful niche in aspects to politics in the area of basically just being devoutly partisan in a television entertainment sort of way, so yes bomb thrower. The reality of it to me is that such issues that draw from more "natural" aspects of people, such as emotion typically never get dealt with and are allowed to fester into something like this. The scary idea of what I am trying to put forward is that such a person gets paid for this and draws and audience from such a base politically to basically act like this? Our political system is not healthy in any regards, because of people like ann coulter. It would be better if at least she did not play as someone serious, others at least claim to be comedians for the most part, though not always. There is a fine line to walk, and basically just being brutal is only going to produce more and more of a negative environment around the board, I mean just look at the middle east, in particular Israel and Palestine, I don’t know if those people know how to work away from that conflict and hatred anymore.

She's right. After all, we've had two black Secretaries of State, how many have y'all had?

The question for debate is:

1. Were Ann Coulter's remarks about John Edwards a totally out-of-bounds slur or just a joke that is being deliberately misinterpreted?
Neither a joke, although it is being misinterpreted, nor a slur, rather a very acerbic serious societal comment.

"It turns out you have to go into rehab if you use the word 'faggot,'
I simply refer you to Isaiah Washington.

2. Do you consider Coulter a serious political commentator or a partisan bomb-thrower?
Duh. Both. She is a partisan bomb-thrower, one of the few on the right who isn't confined to radio. She also makes a tremendous number of very good arguments and points.

A simple question: which is worse, to express judgement on someone's intelligence and character, or their sexuality?

1. Were Ann Coulter's remarks about John Edwards a totally out-of-bounds slur or just a joke that is being deliberately misinterpreted?

Neither. It was a joke, perhaps, but it hasn't been misinterpreted; she was obviously insinuating Edwards could not be described without using the f-word. Thousands of Web commentators have called Coulter the d-word, so apparently anti-gay slurs are not out-of-bounds in her profession. Have we so quickly forgotten the top two official Edwards campaign bloggers who have been nearly fired (but not fired) for bigotry? One resigned last week after slurring conservatives and Catholics, using not only the f-word but virtually every other offensive term? That top Edwards staffer has called Coulter the a-word, the c-word, and probably everything else, but I don't enjoy reading sewer talk, so pardon me for not linking more references. Edwards hired staffers to dish it out, so he shouldn't be surprised when it flies back at him. Still, I think Coulter's comments prove nothing except that she's equally classless.

2. Do you consider Coulter a serious political commentator or a partisan bomb-thrower?

Some of both. She is an entertainer whose schtick is partisan politics. Hundreds of entertainers drop hundreds of f-bombs every day; granted, they are usually of the four-letter variety. Both f-words are equally offensive, but to different groups. The four-letter f-word offends more family-values proponents, while the six-letter f-word offends more family-values opponents. If one is valid in trash entertainment, so is the other. I avoid them both, and encourage others to do the same, but it's a free country.

Edwards is no entertainer, but a candidate for President. He hired the most foul-mouthed, bigotted bloggers he could find to represent his campaign on the Web, and then didn't even try to fire them when they tarnished his image (much to Salon's surprise). Pulling such stunts might qualify him to be a comic somewhere, but it would demonstrate a serious lack of judgement in a candidate for dog-catcher, much less for President.

If Coulter and Edwards were working for me, I'd probably fire them both.

1. Were Ann Coulter's remarks about John Edwards a totally out-of-bounds slur or just a joke that is being deliberately misinterpreted?

Looks like a sad attempt at being funny, and I suppose lots of Republicans found it hilarious. Others have to scramble to disassociate, as those types slurred also might vote. So in effect, AC is working for the Democrats.

2. Do you consider Coulter a serious political commentator or a partisan bomb-thrower?

I'll agree with BD that she is a little of both. Her ratings probably go up with the bombs, so she has to try to keep her career going now and then. Haven't heard much from her for a while, but then after the devil spawn quip, I lost interest even on the level of her ludicrous caricature of the right wing.

This might also be a situation her book publisher has requested, perhaps a little PR ahead of a book release.

BD, regarding your one fired Black SoS and the current one who's looking forward to unemployment, might want to wait and see what President Barack Obama does with the position in 2009

See? Now that's political humor. What AC does is political slapstick. P.J. O'Rourke is a lot better, worlds smarter, but I guess he doesn't appeal as much. He keeps showing up on an NPR game show.

Post Script: (actually HTML) I'd love it if AC were to be on that NPR program. Now that would be funny to the five nines.

It is totally out of bounds. She also defamed the homosexual community with those words. It's amazing that using a word like "waste" denigrates our soldiers, but using "faggot" is somehow a good joke.



Being shocking is her lone claim to fame. It's what makes her a viable author and figure in right wing circles as what she mockingly says is what a lot them actually believe. The candidates distanced themselves from her because they know the average citizen doesn't appreciate those kinds of comments towards select groups in our society, but other citizens do appreciate those comments and would encourage it.

1.) Perhaps both? It seems more likely that the charming Miss Coulter was trying to frame personal thought under the guise of good humor and botched it. Ah, c'est la politics.

2.) Well, since I'm one of those absolute freedom of speech people, I find her very insightful but more importantly: Entitled to her 'bomb-throwing.' Political belief aside, I find her remarks in poor taste but there is little I could or would say to make her change her own comments. There is also little sense in making her apologize to anyone because apologies are just words.

Their sexuality. I can’t stop being heterosexual but I could be dumb enough to assume you know the difference.


The conservative standup comic admits it’s a joke. This can only go downhill. I’m responding to someone who thinks Ann Coulter can make a serious societal comment.

There has been much hoopla about nasty anonymous comments from liberals following Cheney’s near miss. Coulter’s Edwards slam getting picked up by the “MSM” is a double-edged sword. I’m glad the focus has shifted to her conference inanities but I know that’s how she gets paid. And she will need the money for a defense attorney.

Were Ann Coulter's remarks about John Edwards a totally out-of-bounds slur or just a joke that is being deliberately misinterpreted?
Coulter is not interested in making in-bound statements. She doesn’t get paid that way. And yes, it was a joke only her audience would find hilarious by Andrew Sullivan’s account:


Do you consider Coulter a serious political commentator or a partisan bomb-thrower?
She’s a True Believer bomb-thrower. She enjoys tossing grenades not only because she gets paid for doing so, but because she really believes the nation can only be saved from itself and saved from its enemies under the benevolent guidance of a permanent Republican supermajority. Enough Republicans and social conservatives agree with her to warrant alarm, otherwise why would she be invited back to the "largest gathering of conservative political activists in the country"?

I wonder whose fault it is that people missed the joke...


Coulter is moderately entertaining. I don't think most people take her seriously. Although I suppose some believe we should bomb their cities and kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity.

1. Were Ann Coulter's remarks about John Edwards a totally out-of-bounds slur or just a joke that is being deliberately misinterpreted?

2. Do you consider Coulter a serious political commentator or a partisan bomb-thrower?

Coulter is an avatar for the fear and hatred from which the American right wing seems to suffer when ever it must face the popularity of its opposition. It seems that for many on the right, and this is not solely an American characteristic, there is a need to demonise the opposition to a very great degree, and this is what Coulter does and is paid well for doing.

Its a shame really because such inane provocation does nothing to further cooperation and everything to ensure it doesn't happen. This I believe is the real reason why people like Coulter exist in politics. To prevent any one from one side accepting a possible compromise that might grant legitimacy to the other side. As long as the Coulters of this world continue to throw fuel on the fire that seperates each side ideologically then the status quo can be maintained.

It goes without saying that to ignore Coulter is beneficial, but in doing so one must be prepared to have an open mind and open minds are in short supply these days ...on both sides of the political fence.

1. Were Ann Coulter's remarks about John Edwards a totally out-of-bounds slur or just a joke that is being deliberately misinterpreted?
Never mind John Edwards. Her slur was insulting people who have nothing to do with Edwards. Her slur was spreading the kind of hatred and dehumanization that leads to violence.


2. Do you consider Coulter a serious political commentator or a partisan bomb-thrower?
She is the face of modern conservatism.

1. Were Ann Coulter's remarks about John Edwards a totally out-of-bounds slur or just a joke that is being deliberately misinterpreted?

2. Do you consider Coulter a serious political commentator or a partisan bomb-thrower?



Joke - like feeding Justice John Pual Stevens rat poison? That's really funny. He, he! Yeah, most of us got the "joke," we just don't appreciate her crude, mean spirited humor, that is, if you can call it humor.




Entertainment is in the eye of the beholder. You may think she's entertaining - I don't. I'd like to let the air out of her tires, but I'll bet she rides a broom to work.

Such utter crap does sell books, unfortunately. It's another piece of evidence that tells us intellectual acumen is declining in this country.

From the larger sense of the word, let's all start thinking from the bowels.

I never seriously thought ill of her till now. I mean, it was cute for awhile, the fact that conservatives had a bulldog that bit back at a lot of the liberal mud slingers, but now she's just a hired personal attacker with no self respect.

All this does is stir up not just the Democratic Hornets Nest, but create chaos within the Republican ranks.

I think the GOP, especially the youth movement, needs to send her a set of walkin papers.

The saddest part about this is that there was an applause from the audience. Bigotry is still prevalent amongst the Republican party. This is why education is a big issue in this country. If we continue to fail to education our children they will grow up and become Republicans.

Were Ann Coulter's remarks about John Edwards a totally out-of-bounds slur or just a joke that is being deliberately misinterpreted?
Such remarks serve only to denigrate someone's character. She has nothing to say about his actions within politics? If you cannot attack someone's record you attack his person, apparently. She is not worth listening to or writing about quite frankly. She has absolutely no taste or sense of humility in her demeanor. She does more to harm the Right than she does to help them.




Do you consider Coulter a serious political commentator or a partisan bomb-thrower?
I cannot take her seriously because she doesn't behave in a serious or respectful manner. I wouldn't even listen to what she had to say past such a comment as that. It shows that she doesn't have respect for opposing views and she makes false and inflammatory accusations which show her to be a narrow-minded rumormonger at best.

I find it comforting that Rice is looking forward to retirement. Of course, even if the Republican wins, its highly unlikely that she'd be SoS again. That's just the way it happens in DC. 'Tis also refreshing that the old "Bushitler" meme isn't being repeated again. For all the supposed transgressions of our democracy that Bush has undertaken, nobody saving those on the real fringes is even suggesting that he's going to stick around the White House in '09.


So you think that Gay Pride Parades are worse than Mensa Conventions?

Anonymous? Bill Maher is anything but anonymous. He has far more exposure than Ann Coulter.


What's sad about this thread is that nobody is willing to engage the underlying truth of her joke/observation, and I'm not referring to Edward's orientation, of which I have no clue.

Say "faggot", off to "rehab" (i.e. re-education) you go. Political correctness triumphs. Again.

The point is not that it is politically incorrect. The point is, there is a time and place for mudslinging.
Is that how you'd like to see either side of politics behave? Do you rely on soundbites to help drive your political ideals? I don't and I'm tired of stuff like this. As far as I'm concerned, anyone, whether they are coming from Left, Right or Center, who engages in ad hominems is a small-minded person who has no place in the political sphere whatsoever.

In light of Ann Coulter's recent remarks if Mitt Romney knows what is good for him, he will immediately distance himself and his campaign from Ms. Coulter and her offensive diatribes! Somehow I just don't think he fights on her level!

AC continues to be invited all the high level Republican events, and the right-wing broadcasters continue to employ her as their resident expert at large! GO FIGURE!!

1. Ann Coulter doesn't tell jokes. I doubt she knows any jokes. She makes big bucks and gets a lot of attention for being nastier than anybody else in the professional pundit business. At some point she looked around and said, "If I can't be smarter or better-connected than Laura Ingraham, Peggy Noonan, Michelle Malkin or Mary Matalin, I'll be meaner than all of them put together."

Everything about Coulter is calculated. She chooses what slur she's going to use like she chooses her mini-skirts. She says what she means and means what she says. Unfortunately, most of it is toxic sludge that only makes other conservatives look as harsh and thoughtless as herself. I agree with Titus and Sleeper that just because the news media takes Coulter seriously, most mainstream conservatives can't put enough distance between themselves and her.

Perhaps at one time she served some useful purpose in rattling the cages of liberals, but lately her barbed tongue seems to wound her own allies more than her enemies. Nobody seriously thinks John Edwards is a "faggot" but gay-baiting "f" bombs is typical of the kind of lowball and lowbrow tactics Coulter indulges in. Is it any wonder than no political campaign will touch her with 10-foot pole?

2. Actually, I consider Coulter a rabid pit bull that goes around biting people, chewing up the furniture and scaring the neighbors. She needs to be put down and out of the world of serious political commentary. All she does is do more harm than good to the cause of conservatism.

I agree, the question is, what is the time and place? I only ask because most folks here seem to think that all mudslinging is wrong. Of course, they usually paint their mudslinging as "fact sharing" or "spirited opinionating", but that's a subject for another thread.

In truth, on occassion, yes. Not that I like it when my ox is gored. Politics is important, and if it fails to encompass the normal range of human experience it is flawed. Would I like to see nothing but Al Franken, Bill Maher and Ann Coulter style politics? No, because that would be as limited and inhuman as a bunch of Vulcans sitting around rationally discussing everything. Humour as a political tool is as old as politics, and 90% of humour is based on pain, denigration and embarrassment. The rest is irony. Humour also is tempermental. Even the greatest comedians have tossed out jokes that fell flatter than a three day old filet of sole, and smelled worse. But alongside that comes the use of humour as a means of opening doors, cracking the window so the light of insight can come flooding in. Think if you will of all the various ways that humour is described, and few, if any, refer to building up. Edged tools are the most common, "rapier wit", "scalpel", "razor like", etc.

Nope, just the daily weather report and traffic updates, that's all I use soundbites for, plus maybe the occasional restaraunt special.

Then you leave room for virtually nobody. In a utopian uber-rationalist world (i.e. Vulcan), your standard would be feasible. Unfortunately, in the real world, we are left to judge for ourselves not only the policies that different politicos advance, but also the character of the politicos. When we do so, those coming up short often holler ad hominem from the mountaintops. Tough, that's real life. I not only want to know whether or not the policy you're espousing is a good one, but whether or not you can be trusted to see it through. Such a question truly does go "to the man".

Now why would I think that? You asked which was worse, to pass judgment on someone’s sexuality or their intelligence and character. I said it’s worse to pass judgment on their sexuality because they can’t do anything about it, like skin color. On the other hand people can learn, they can try modifying asinine behavior.


It’s ironic you would bring up Maher, because in a way he made the same argument you’re lauding Coulter for; that our PCness has gone over the deep end:


Which is it BD; too much political correctness or too much political correctness for one side?

Just to clarify since you brought up Maher I was referring to anon commentators on HuffPo and even some non-anons. I suppose I could turn comments off on my blog but I don’t think I should be labeled <pick a noun> based on what others say.

My apologies for miswording my question, although the matter still stands. Which is better or worse, a Gay Pride Parade or a Mensa Convention? yes, I am going somewhere with this, so kindly humour me.

I said "intelligence", not "education." Innate intelligence is not subject to much change.

And they can try modifying their homosexual behavior as well.

Maybe not so ironic, apparently Coulter and Maher are friends. By the way, what's the relevance this "hoopla" to your argument. You kinda left it hanging there....

Well, its both. There is too much political correctness period, and there is a disparity in the "enforcement" of the PC. Naturally, this does raise the question of where do we draw the lines? Are slurring someone by implication and joking about the failure to kill somebody on the same level? Remember, it was Barney Frank, a sitting Congressman, who made the joke about failing to kill the Veep. Maher then proceeded to riff on it.

Well, since you were kind enough to leave out such a non-anon as Maher, I just thought it was pertinent to the conversation.

Humor is one thing. Spewing denigrating comments isn't funny, whoever is doing it. Where is the line to be drawn? What if you were a politician and someone from the other side of partisanship called you a pedophile. Would that be acceptable? And if it was not true what would it have to do with the subect at hand? The only time I can see humor coming into it is when it at least has some context to the subject at hand. Randomly blurting loaded terms isn't funny and it fits about as well as a square peg in a round whole. Let's get on with the business at hand, shall we? What can you do? What have you done? What are you planning on doing? That sort of dialogue.


I realize that mudslinging and name-calling is the "norm" in politics. But unlike you and apparently countless others, I see no use in it, other than to detract from the issues and to undermine the intelligence of the American public.

Coulter could think of nothing related to anything Edwards actually stands for to insult him with, so she called him a faggot. As an insult. That insult only makes sense if you already loathe gay people. As the CPAc audience and Coulter's defenders apparently do.

1. Were Ann Coulter's remarks about John Edwards a totally out-of-bounds slur or just a joke that is being deliberately misinterpreted?

I am amazed that anyone listens to anything that skanky witch has to say, but apparently, the ‘Pubs love her. Yes, of course, her remarks were meant to be a slur. Just because she sarcastically framed it while referring to other instances (Isaiah Washington) where a person used the same word and went into rehab, her intent was still to call Edwards a (f-word)…as evidenced by Edwards’ statement about it and her response “I’m so ashamed, I’m laughing.” (M)Ann Coulter is a hateful excuse for a human being, and if she wasn’t so cruel and nasty, I’d almost feel sorry for her. Almost.

Her intent was to impugn Edwards’ masculinity, but, as a news reporter I heard on the radio say, her masculinity is certainly not in doubt.

2. Do you consider Coulter a serious political commentator or a partisan bomb-thrower?

Personally, I don’t consider her anything more than a vicious hate-monger that for some unknown reason is taken seriously by right-wing news outlets. I do think Fox ought to seriously consider booting her before something even more outrageous spews from her, and Republican candidates would be wise to distance themselves from her (as Mitt Romney apparently has).

I really don't think this kind of thing is necessary either. Nothing you can call Coulter is worse than what she actually is, so why insult transsexuals? Honestly it strikes me as being exactly the same thing Coulter did, taking a swipe at a group completely unrelated to the person you are intending to insult.

No, I wasn't insulting transsexuals at all. I was saying that Ann Coulter is more masculine than many men. My (lame) attempt at humor, sorry. She tries so hard to be "one of the boys" and toss around locker room language, she deserves to be called masculine. It has nothing to do with transsexuals.

A little bit of both. I am not a fan of this type of rhetoric from either side but lets face it she, Bush and other Republicans have been called a lot worse by the left including remarks from Kennedy and others. Edwards own campaign staff had some controversial comments of their own if I remember correctly.



A little of both. She is not a best selling author for nothing. She does her homework and is not someone who can be pushed around by the left. Lets remember that when she speaks on college campuses, bastions of “free speech” the left is there to shut her up any way they can including physical attacks.
http://www.kold.com/Global/story.asp?S=246...mp;nav=14RTSHDO

And to be fair she has said the same for Gore in 2006:

On MSNBC, Coulter called Gore a "total fag," while Matthews said "we'd love to have her back"
http://mediamatters.org/items/200607280001

.


Interesting that you feel this way about AC. While I would be willing to bet you don’t feel the same way about the clowns on the left including Kennedy, all of Air America and many others who have called President Bush every name in the book.

DG, this is more humorous than AC(DC)'s attempt. For one, no slur is made toward anyone other than AC(DC), such as coyley calling her Butch. Then there's an ironic thing about her manly ways being both attractive and condemned by the religious side of the Right.

[The acronym, AC(DC), means Anne Coulter of the District of Columbia. What were you thinking? ]

I'm in agreement that both sides of politics have their comedians. The ones who take themselves seriously aren't very funny, such as AC(DC) and AF(MN). The crack about the wasted bomb on the Veep wasn't funny either. This goes into a matter of taste, such as people who love and can't stand The Three Stooges. I used to think they were really funny when I was a kid.

Something changed.

Or maybe they'll become communists who post on AD without thinking.... consider that we've proven time and time again that over all that Republicans are at least as educated as Democrats, and in most polls have more higher education as a party. It's meaningless...

Coulter's job is to sell books and stand as a "tough white conservative". Calling Edwards a 'faggot' on stage is a great way to stir things up. Sure, Edwards isn't a 'fag', but in many people's eyes he's not the toughest guy in the world. That's kinda what she meant I'd suppose.

If Coulter is the face of the GOP and represents conservatives, Sharpton is the voice of the DNC and liberals of America. That's the kind of correlation you're drawing.

Bigotry is prevalent among the Republican Party? Lord... not this again... spare me.

To me, Ann Coltier is the best ACTUAL representitive of what 'pubs are behind closed doors- she just says what they are too scared to do in public- it is how GW got into office in the first place- be all pious and devout conservative- you can say and do anything and they will still buy your fecal material.

Pretty much every conservative I have ever met in my life is AT LEAST a closet bigot, the "I would never hire a black person or a fag, not that I have anything against them" kind of deal.

I rarely even stick around to keep company with someone that claims repeatedly, and makes a big point, of being conservative.

Ann Coltier just says the things most conservatives are too afraid to do in public, that is why they buy her books.

She has o facts for anything she says, so she just uses slurs- just like her followers.


Al Franken scares the right so badly with his books- because, at least, when he insults someone- he uses facts to do it- and why his books are about 1000% better than anything anyone on the right has ever came up with.

In fact, I have read a great deal of right wing books over the years- and they are barely even entertaining. Conservatives just don't make good entertainers either- it requires the ability to see two sides to a story- in order to make it funny for everyone- conservative commentators don't have that ability- so they only appeal to the faithful-

You don't have a good Jon Stewert or Colbert on the right- because they just don't exist- the Jon Stewart liberal type is very comfortable making jokes over thier own side's silliness- conservative commentators have ZERO ability or even a sense of humor to slam thier own sides stupidity, that is why the best Ann can do is revert to calling someone a 'fag"- something I haven't done in over 25 years- about the time I graduated from high school.

And why Barnaby's comment is pretty spot on- it is pretty impossible for a conservative commentator to climb out from the high school potty humor, because she has no ability to make fun of her own stupidity.

It is like when Bill O'Rielly went on the Letterman show- he got tore up from the floor up- if Ann ever appeared in forum like that- she would be mincemeat in minutes- because all she could do is call dave a "fag"- while he would be able to turn it against her very quickly.


Every wonder why there is 0 conservatives with outspoken views, that can incorporate those views, that has a crossover audience like the Daily show?

Conservatives can ONLY play to conservatives- but Liberal commentators and book writers can play for both audiences quite well.

Coulter is invited to CPAC over and over despite her habit of offensive slurs. The supposed "satirical" intent of her use of the slur was to speak in defense of someone who physically attacked a co worker while shouting epithets. The Republican party campaigns entirely based on prejudice- when is the last time any republican did anything even remotely fiscally conservative?
I'm supposed to believe people who cheered when the Supreme Court appointed the President of the United States are serious when they claim that opposing "judicial activism" is why they oppose any advance in civil rights. And I'm supposed to believe this while they laugh and cheer someone being called a faggot. In the same week where a 72 year old man was beaten to death because he's gay. Which I bring up because things like that don't happen in a vacuum. Every dehumanizing attack Republicans make against gays has a hand in people thinking it's ok to beat us to death.

Actually, it can be pretty darned funny. I'm still chuckling over DaffyGrl's spew. Of course, I'm chuckling over the irony.

oh, I just read Grendel's response to Daffy, and I'm laughing again. More irony...
Hey, I don't know where The Line should be, but you're the one who said "The point is, there is a time and place for mudslinging."

Acceptable? No. Tolerable? Depending on who it came from, yes. If it came from another candidate or officeholder, or their spokesfolks, then it wouldn't be tolerable, it would be the basis for a slander (or is it libel? I can never keep the two straight) suit.

Depends on what the subject at hand was. Admittedly, its not likely that it would be directly relevant to many political topics, it is always relevant to the matter of character.

True, however, nobody here has any clue what "the subject at hand" was in Ann Coulter's speech. What, exactly, preceded her bomb (and I do mean that in both senses of the word)? It may not have been random at all within context.

And don't forget "why should we trust you?" That's the most important question of all.

Undermine the intelligence? Puhleeeez. Those who choose to apply their intelligence to politics will do so, mudslinging or not. If they're so offended by the mudslinging that they won't engage themselves with the issues, then, frankly, they're not worth much themselves. Others will simply take delight in it as a raucus form of entertainment, and never forget, politics has always been a form of entertainment for those not enmeshed in it. And yes, I do see a very real practical value to mudslinging, aside from the motivation it gives the process to "dig up dirt" on the opposition. Mudslinging gives us the opportunity to see how candidates handle personal injustice and pressure. If Edwards sent some of the Gay Mafia (sorry, I just couldn't resist ) after Coulter, then we'd have to wonder whether or not he'll nuke Whooziwhatsistan when they embargo Breck shampoo. Since there's been no indication of anybody breaking Ann's compact or slashing her handbag, we can safely assume that he didn't send the Gay Mafia after her.


Again, since we don't know the context, what she said before the remarks, we have no indication that she was seriously engaging any of the opposition candidates' platforms.

Ann Coulter is not a Senator of the United States. I don’t listen to Air America, so I cannot respond to that. As for calling Bush “names”, I don’t recall anyone quoted calling him a “f----t” in public, or advocating his assassination. Most of the Bush names/criticism are based on his actions.

Ted Kennedy has never advocated assassinating the president, as Coulter did in 1998, or assassinating a Justice of the Supreme Court and a Rhode Island Senator, or compared all conservatives to a murderer, or classified them all as traitors, or characterized the widows of victims of 9/11 as enjoying their husbands’ deaths, or advocated terrorist bombing of media outlets. Ann Coulter did all these things and more. Your comparison is specious.

Blah blah blah... more bologna. Seriously. Supreme Court activism and beatings of gay elderly men have NOTHING to do with making fun of John Edwards and his affeminate nature.

The Republican party campaigns based upon prejudice? Bring it. You're on AD, and people here can't make those claims without some hard fact. Try that first, someone might take your points seriously.

The truth of the matter is that Coulter is SUPPOSED to be inflammatory. That's how she gets press. So what. I think John Edwards is lacking some testosterone too. Whatever. Who cares? The other side of the aisle has it's share of inflammatory comments (please don't make me prove this...). That's what pundits do. It stirs the pot and makes headlines which = $$$ for them.

I'd love to see how you can draw the logical and objectively factual conclusion to how Coulter's remarks cause beatings. I suppose CSI causes murders and the Marlboro man causes arterial sclerosis.



Daffy- let's be serious. Ann Coulter didn't really advocate terrorists blowing up media outlets or mention widow's enjoying their husbands deaths. Coulter is VERY satirical and uses sarcasm to the hilt. You know it. She's not campaigning for those things. She's probably a little tougher and more rough around the edges than most elitists would care for, but realistically she's not out asking for those things in any literal terms.

I personally believe that this isn't such a big deal. Maybe it hit a cord with homosexuals, but I really don't care about that either. People openly make fun of southerners and that's just plain funny usually... but you hit a nerve and bring up homosexuality and it's a media nightmare!!! American sensitivity has come to an all time high. Maybe she should've said "sissy" or "panty waist"... but that might've been offensive to sissies...

It's spelled effiminate. or Faggot if you're a Republican. Which of course has nothing to do with spreading hate against gay people.
I backed up my points. Are you going to respond to them or is mispelled ad hominem the best you can do? Where was the Republican outrage over "judicial activism" when the Supreme Court appointed the PResident of the United States? Where is the Republican outrage over "judicial activism" in any instance where it doesn't provide a cover for opposing civil rights?
It isn't about Edwards. Calling someone a faggot is only an insult if you already despise gay people. Making "humorous" references to Isaiah Washington physically assaulting co workers while shouting epithets is supposed to prove what exactly? Other than that Republicans hate gays.
Are you saying gay bashing is completely unrelated to the dehumanization of gays?

Aevans176, you constantly accuse me of bashing Republicans/conservatives. I'm trying very hard not to in this thread. Really, I am.

While Coulter is certainly a "tough White conservative," I would suggest by being so nasty and crude all the time and making herself a lighting rod for controversy, she makes it tough for White conservatives. I don't know about you but my mama always told me you can catch more flies with honey than vinegar (never could figure out why I was supposed to be catching flies).

A few months ago we lost a "tough White liberal" in Molly Ivins who was great at stirring things up herself. But she did it with wit and humor and not negativity. I'm not saying Ann Coulter has anything in common with Molly Ivins, but Ivins never became a tool to be used to bash conservatives. Ivins never made herself bigger than what she was writing about.

Ivins was no fan of President Bush, but she wouldn't allow herself to be lumped in the category of "Bush-haters." “It is not necessary to hate George W. Bush to think he’s a bad President,” Ivins wrote. “Grownups can do that, you know. You can decide someone’s policies are a miserable failure without lying awake at night consumed with hatred.”

Let me take this one step further. In a Washington Post interview (sorry, I can't find the link) Ivins expanded on her theory of strong disagreement instead of active hatred:

IVINS: Over many years of covering politics, I have known and liked a lot of politicians with whom I never agreed about a single thing. Bob Dole and Alan Simpson come to mind as two of my favorite Republicans, and I could list Texas conservatives by the dozens.

As it happens, I have known George W. Bush for a long time—not well, but for a long time. Since we were both in high school. He went to prep school in the East, and I went to prep school in Houston, but he hung around with friends of mine, dated girls I knew. I would never claim we were friends, but he was someone I vaguely knew.

For the six years he was governor of Texas, I watched him closely…Although Bush rather promptly becomes defensive and prickly when questioned, he is by and large perfectly affable. You would have to work at it to dislike him personally. On the occasions when we meet, we would “rib” one another. I personally hope the photo of me sitting on his lap at a Christmas party with him dressed as Santa has disappeared for all time.

Did you know that it is quite possible not to hate someone and at the same time notice their policies are disastrous for people in this country? Quite a thought, isn’t it? Grown-ups can actually do that—can think a policy is disastrous without hating the person behind it…

I honestly don’t think you have to hate someone in politics to think they’re wrong. I would like to remind all the lockstep conservatives that there is a difference between hatred and anger. What you are looking at in this country is not hatred of George W. Bush—a perfectly affable guy—it is growing anger.

I get it that conservatives like the fact that Ann Coulter doesn't sugarcoat her words and gives as well as she gets. But what I wonder, Aevans176 can we disagree with each other without having to hate each other?

We have had hard and harsh words pass between us at various times on this board. I never have had the feeling though that you hated me; only that you strongly disagreed with me. I don't think Coulter makes that distinction. It's not enough for her to say she dislikes John Edwards. She has to insult both him AND gay men. If she were going to unleash that F-bomb on anyone you'd think she go after Rudy Giuliani who actually has dressed up in drag.

There are conservative thinkers and there are conservatives who just like getting up in your face. Coulter writes books. I've never read any of them so I don't know if there are any ideas in them, but I would presume she has to put something more on the pages than, "liberals suck."

I would like to know Aevans176 do you consider Ann Coulter and her tactics to be a good representation of the conservative philosophy? I believe she is so abrasive and turns off as many people as she turns on that ultimately she does more harm than good for conservatism. She makes herself the issue and thereby overshadows the larger issues. By constantly putting the lampshade over her head and hiking her skirt up, Ann seems to be saying, "Look at me" instead of "Listen to what I'm saying." Is the messenger garbling the message?

Am I wrong? I am trying to find out from someone who knows better than I and not just have a knee-jerk response to this. I've already taken my swing at Coulter. Now I want to know is there a method behind the madness or not?

I'm sorry, I must've misspelled a word and that helped to prove your point... !?!?!?!?
I'm going to make this easy for you to understand...

1.Seriously- you never showed anywhere how Republican campaigns are based upon prejudice. Please give me AT LEAST one Republican campaign based upon prejudice.

2. Judicial activism and the President have NOTHING to do with this thread. Seriously. You need to read a little closer. This is about Ann Coulter and J Edwards being called 'faggot'.

The fact of the matter is that liberal pundits say all kinds of ugly things that don't make conservatives up in arms because we don't care. We're called ignorant, boorish, etc, etc, etc. Seriously. John Edwards isn't going to make it to the top of the macho list.



A derogatory word from a Republican pundit cannot be correlated to gay bashings. You really didn't even prove that the people that beat the man were republicans. Furthermore, does the word 'faggot' cause hatred at all? Seriously, if you use the term 'white trash', do you hate white people, or does it describe a certain type of white person? Does the term 'faggot' describe a certain type of homosexual? Hmmm...

Anyway- back to the objectivity- again, please prove that Republican campaigns are based upon prejudice (like try to use an example for starters) THEN correlate that to this thread. I'd love to read it.

Yes, let’s do be serious. Many right-wing bloggers and AC’s fellow pundits (even Michelle Malkin! ) are not pleased, and many have asked that she not be invited to CPAC in the future. That is far more convincing to me than your making excuses for inexcusable behavior. I even read somewhere that the organizer of CPAC is considering dumping her from the 2008 event (sorry-lost my link to the story).

As for “hitting a chord” with homosexuals, I don’t know what the heck you’re getting at. Homosexuals vote, too, and some of them are actually (gasp) Republicans. Your very own VP has a gay daughter, and I’ll eat my hat if she’s a liberal! Hate speech is hate speech, whether it is blurting the N word or calling a presidential candidate a rude term for a homosexual.

So is she is so bad for the comment how about this one:

WASHINGTON — More people in the world would live if Vice President Dick Cheney died, political commentator Bill Maher said, raising few eyebrows despite suggesting the death of the U.S. vice president would be a good thing.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,256650,00.html

Worse or ok by you?

It demonstrates quite blatantly that what modern conservatives claim to stand for is just a mask to cover their prejudice when they ignore those "strongly held beliefs" any time it would be inconvenient for them.
So. It isn't about John Edwards.

Her supposed satirical intent was to paint a man who physically attacked his co workers as some kind of martyr to the PC police. Because it's a damn shame when a man can't go around beating up his coworkers and calling them faggot. But that of course has nothing to do with violence against gays.

Bill Maher doesn't have the long and sordid history of hate speech that AC does, but the comment was not the smartest thing he ever did. Now, if you break it down, all he said was:

which, if you take the emotion out of it, is actually a statement based in fact. Cheney is the architect of the war, and if he were gone, leaving Bush rudderless and leaving a power vacuum there, it is quite possible the tide would turn and fewer people would lose their lives because of Dick Cheney. While AC's comment had no factual basis whatsoever.

BTW, did you hear Cheney was diagnosed with a DVT in his leg. I won't make any inappropriate comments.

which, if you take the emotion out of it, is actually a statement based in fact. Cheney is the architect of the war, and if he were gone, leaving Bush rudderless and leaving a power vacuum there, it is quite possible the tide would turn and fewer people would lose their lives because of Dick Cheney. While AC's comment had no factual basis whatsoever.


If I take the emotion out of it you statement makes no sense whatsoever. As if Cheney “runs” the war from his office and it will stop if he dies?? Come on please. And if we “lose” there will be no consequences?? But I get the picture – he is good AC bad – ya right!

And this is not the only stupid thing this Maher idiot has said.

Last week's comments weren't the first to call into question Maher's freewheeling speech. His ABC show "Politically Incorrect" was cancelled shortly after the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks when he said the hijackers were "warriors

The emotion comes from saying "Bill Maher wants the VP to die!!" when in fact he didn't say that at all. And as for all the other gobbledegook above, show me where I ever said "the war will stop if he dies" or "he is good, AC bad". Give ME a break. Unless selective reading is involved here, I don't know where you came up with that.

I consider Coulter the best thing going for progressive politics. Everytime she opens her mouth with one of her bizarre conservative comments, the GOP loses votes and the progressive agenda is moved forward.

Newt and Coulter in 2008! The perfect conservative ticket for quantum wierdness.

Let’s not deify her. Sure, she’s good for progressives and liberals, but she couldn’t hurt real conservatives either. The Dems took Congress thanks mostly to elected Republicans, not their fringe. Coulter didn't bring liberals to the polls and convince Republicans voting against their own party. The Republican Party did that.


It depends, BD. I haven’t been to a Mensa Convention. Do members spend some of the time ridiculing non-members? What’s wrong with Gay Pride Parades? It’s like a Key West carnival, except there are women with airbrushed breasts.


Have it your way with whatever exception you will allow.


Can you modify your heterosexual behavior? I can’t. Then again I’ve never had an interest in trying.


Short version: read this. It ties into Seamus’s Edwards post. Sorry for not elaborating but I shouldn’t even be posting.


Ah, sorry, I don’t subscribe to the Liberal Media Meme.


According to the transcript I provided Rep. Frank was paraphrasing the anon bloggers and laughed. He didn’t make the joke, he repeated it and laughed. Does laughter give Frank ownership of that joke?

I don’t meant to be evasive here but most people are cognitive misers. We muddle through information that confirms and satisfies. Maybe Rep. Frank shouldn’t have laughed, maybe he shouldn’t have gone to Maher’s show, but Frank didn’t make the joke up himself. And I don’t know where the line is drawn. I love humor, dirty humor with lots of c-words and f-words etc., dark humor, but I’m glad as hell the left doesn’t have the equivalent of a successful and “funny” Ann Coulter.


Was that a joke?