Coulter Said What?

[BT]

Coulter Said What?
Ann Coulter is speaking at the moment, and drawing a huge crowd -- with longer lines than those for the Rudy Giuliani. She's definitely one of the stars here at CPAC, and I listened to the audio stream for a bit while she opened her speech. I had to take a phone call, though, and I missed a critical, and infuriating, throw-away line. Michelle Malkin reports (from two chairs down):

"I'd say something about John Edwards, but if you use the word 'faggot', you have to go to rehab."
Yeah, that's just what CPAC needs -- an association with homophobia. Nice work, Ann.

At some point, Republicans will need to get over their issues with homosexuality. Regardless of whether one believes it to be a choice or a hardwired response, it has little impact on anyone but the gay or lesbian person. We can argue that homosexuality doesn't require legal protection, but not when we have our front-line activists referring to them as "faggots" or worse. That indicates a disturbing level of animosity rather than a true desire to allow people the same rights and protections regardless of their lifestyles.

Ann Coulter can be an entertaining and incisive wit. Unfortunately, she can also be a loose cannon, and CPAC might want to consider that the next time around.

http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/009308.php

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I believe Ed Morrisey has it wrong.

Ann Coulter made the statement. Ann Counter is the one who needs to get over her issues with homosexuality.

[Michael Tee]

Why am I not surprised by anything Ann Coulter says?

[Stray Pooch]

I believe Ed Morrisey has it wrong.

Ann Coulter made the statement. Ann Counter is the one who needs to get over her issues with homosexuality.

I think there is some merit to the argument, though, BT.  Ann Coulter is known for making outrageous statements but there is some truth to the argument that someone doesn't make such obviously offensive statements absent an environment that tolerates such opinions.  It's no secret that Republicans, at least as a general consensus, disapprove of homosexuality.  But most Republicans don't use the word "faggot" in public discourse - not to mention trying to paint their opponents as "faggots" to score brownie points with an audience.

The fact is, there are a lot of Republicans and/or conservatives (Man, I hope it is a majority - and an overwhelming one at that) who disapprove of homosexuality for moral or religious reasons but do not hate or harrass gays as a matter of daily behavior.  It's bad enough when Pat Robertson claims gays caused 9-11 or words to that effect.   It is MUCH worse when someone like Ann Coulter tries to skewer a Democratic Presidential Candidate by calling him a "faggot."  Aside from the general idiocy of the comment, it shows the kind of debate skills that we would expect from some of the less-intelligent debaters here at the saloon. 

Ann Coulter should be generally lambasted by those of us on the right for this ridiculously childish, offensive comment.  In the same fashion that we ask (and rightly) where the Moslem outrage is at acts of terror and irresponsible rhetoric from Islamists, we need to make it clear that we object to these kinds of idiotic comments.   If we do not do so, the author is completely within reason to blame not just the pundit, but the party.

[BT]

Pooch,

Good to see you posting again.

Ann Coulter did NOT call Edwards a faggot. So let's not put words in her mouth. Some people on this board are hypersensitive about that,. See the tangled web tangent.

And secondly Ann Coulter is the one with issues concerning homosexuals. She is the one calling them faggots. She is a shock jock, not much different than Howard Stern or even our own Brass. Because she spoke those words at a CPAC convention no more means those attending think like she does than those who read Brass's grenades believe like he does.

The broad brush is wrong here, just as much as it is when used against races or religions.

[Stray Pooch]

Thank you, BT.  It's good to be back.

I have to say that saying Ann didn't call Edwards a faggot is nitpicking.  She didn't <technically> directly call him a faggot, but it was very clear that was the intent of her comment - unless, of course, the comment was misquoted. 

Put it this way, if I said to you "I'd say something about your mama but you don't allow the use of the word 'whore' on your website"  I feel confident I would have a bloody nose at least. 

I understand what you are saying about the broadbrush, but I think it is legitimate to at least expect some strong criticism from the right. 

[BT]

I understand what you are saying about the broadbrush, but I think it is legitimate to at least expect some strong criticism from the right

Why?

To do so would indicate culpability.

And I may be nitpicking but she didn't call Edwards a faggot.
And i don't think she has ever implied he was light in the loafers any other time. Not defending her, just trying to keep the record accurate.

I think she was referring to the whole PC thing where rehab is the get out of free card for saying something stupid. See Mel Gibson or the guy on Grays Anatomy.

[Stray Pooch]

Coulter said "I'd say something about John Edwards, but if you use the word 'faggot', you have to go to rehab."

How does the first half of that sentence relate to the second?

Specifically, why does the consequence of using the word "faggot" prevent her from saying something about Edwards?

If she is not calling Edwards a faggot, the second clause is a non sequitir.  I suppose theoretically she could be suggesting that John Edwards had used the word faggot or that a discussion of Edwards might require the use of the word faggot in some other context than a direct accusation of homosexuality.  But I think that is Clintonian.  Yes, she was also making an offhand comment about the PC state of debate, but she could have just as easily said "I'd say something about homosexuality but . . ."   

I can't believe you are pushing that argument.  It just doesn't work. 

As to culpability, since we are parsing carefully you may have meant that ANN was not culpable  - in which case I disagree.  But you may also have meant that criticizing Ann indicated that WE were culpable.  That makes no sense.  Criticizing someone indicates DISagreement.  If I criticize the Dixie Chicks for trashing the President, bin Laden for bombing the towers or Bush for poor diplomatic skills, that does not indicate that I am culpable in those things.  If I criticize Ann Coulter, it indicates that I think she is wrong for using such language and conveying such ideas, and I want to be sure I am not associated with them (since she frequently represents views I agree with). Of course the left is going to criticize her. They would criticize her regardless of what she said.  When we do it, it indicates we disagree with her even though she is ostensibly one of ours.  You may be suggesting that we would be "admitting" we were culpable if we criticized her.  That is not true. We would be admitting only that one of ours goofed up.

[BT]

Coulter said "I'd say something about John Edwards, but if you use the word 'faggot', you have to go to rehab."

How does the first half of that sentence relate to the second?
Specifically, why does the consequence of using the word "faggot" prevent her from saying something about Edwards?

WHo says it has to? Does Ann have a record of speaking perfectly sequential English. Who is to say the clauses are related.

"I can't go to the store right now, what the heck is that on your shirt?"

And so what if it is Clintonian? People are claiming she called Edwards a faggot, and no one can show a direct quote where she did. You may interpret her sentence to mean she did, but that is your interpretation.

And yes i do mean that succumbing to demands for denouncement would indicate culpability on the succumber's part. It shows that the demander's are correct in assuming your group is as homophobic as Coulter, that your group is guilty at the minimum of enabling Colters behavior, because if you don'[t denounce then the charges are correct.

That is a far cry from criticizing absent the demand. That would be an independent action, free of the coercion from the broadbrushing demanders.

[Stray Pooch]

<WHo says it has to? Does Ann have a record of speaking perfectly sequential English. Who is to say the clauses are related.

"I can't go to the store right now, what the heck is that on your shirt?">

Oh please.  The word "but" in her statement says it has to.  My interpretation is the one any rational analysis of the sentence would lead to.  This grammatical discussion is silly. It is completely reasonable to say that Coulter implied Edwards was a faggot.  I am dismayed that you are using this line of logic to defend your position.  You are WAY better than that. 

<And so what if it is Clintonian? >

Clinton was a liar who couched his lies in technicalities.  If you wish to debate in that fashion, of course you have every right.  But you can hardly expect your opinion to get any more respect than his did.  I repeat, you are better than that.


<And yes i do mean that succumbing to demands for denouncement would indicate culpability on the succumber's part. It shows that the demander's are correct in assuming your group is as homophobic as Coulter, that your group is guilty at the minimum of enabling Colters behavior, because if you don't denounce then the charges are correct.

That is a far cry from criticizing absent the demand. That would be an independent action, free of the coercion from the broadbrushing demanders. >

I didn't say we should criticize her because of the demands.  That was never a part of my argument.  I say we should criticize her because her comments were offensive, and we should have the courage and integrity to police our own - with or without the yammering from the left.  But we should no more allow the actions of the left to PREVENT us from apologizing than to force us to.  When we refuse to criticize our own because the left had the nerve to "demand" it of us, we allow the left to choose our actions. Frankjly, that smacks of "You're not the boss of me" childishness.  I don't care what the left says or demands.  Coulter's comments were garbage and she should be criticized.  It's true that the left will use any reason to criticize the right, but in this case they are right (no pun intended).  If we are not calling Ann on the carpet for these outrageous comments, we are giving tacit approval.  I, at least, intend to properly identify an entrenching tool.

[BT]

Tell you what Pooch. You criticize her. You police your own. Who gave you the badge anyway?

[Plane]

I thnk there is a recognisable diffrence between John Edwards and an English cigarette.

[BT]

Here is the fuller text of a recent email exchange between the NYT's Adam Nagourney and Ann Coulter concerning this controversy:

The three Republican presidential contenders denouncing you….Do you want to do any response?

C'mon it was a joke. I would never insult gays by suggesting that they are like John Edwards. That would be mean.
Did any of these guys say anything after I made the same remark about Al Gore last summer?Why not? What were they trying to say about Al Gore with their silence?

http://www.slate.com/id/2160585/

[Stray Pooch]

The badge was given to me in the First Amendment. I have every right to criticize ANY candidate, pundit, columnist, or man on the street.  This entire website is based on that concept. 

Obviously, Ann's comment was intended as a joke.  But the joke was that Edwards was a "faggot."  As you might see in the thread about the Mormon girl being punished for using the term "gay" in a derogatory sense, I don't approve of PC for PC sake.  I do, however, think that using such a foul term - even as a joke - ought to be denounced.  I think it is the same as saying "I would say something about Obama, but if you use the word 'nigger' you have to go to rehab.   

[hnumpah]

You gotta remember where you are, Pooch.

If a Democratic candidate or pundit said something like that about a Republican candidate, these same folks who are defending Coulter's use of the remark would be howling like banshees, screaming for someone's head on a platter.

It's all relative.

[Plane]

You gotta remember where you are, Pooch.

If a Democratic candidate or pundit said something like that about a Republican candidate, these same folks who are defending Coulter's use of the remark would be howling like banshees, screaming for someone's head on a platter.

It's all relative.

Got an example of this phenominon?

Liberals do not need to be as carefull with their language as Conseratives do.