There is little say about Ann Coulter, but to second Orin Kerr's post below. Coulter has said a great many idiotic, bigoted, and offensive things over the years, and calling John Edwards a "faggot" is actually tame by her standards. For a very partial sampling of Coulter's wit and wisdom, see this 2006 article by libertarian columnist Cathy Young. As another example, I would note her book claiming that not just some, but nearly all liberal Democrats were traitors and Soviet collaborators during the Cold War.
However, as Orin suggests, the real problem is not the things Coulter says, but the fact that a large swathe of the mainstream right views her as a heroine - or at least as an acceptable part of the conservative movement - despite her having said them. In some cases, I suspect they actually like her because she said them. When Coulter was fired by National Review back in 2001, I hoped that she would be rejected by most other mainstream conservatives, and swiftly fade into oblivion. Unfortunately, I was overly optimistic. While some conservatives - and perhaps more libertarians - have indeed rejected her, too many have not. The very fact that she was invited to address the Conservative Political Action Conference, a major movement conservative event, is a sign of her continued good standing for much of the right. The fact that the previous speaker - prominent Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney - praised her, is another. But perhaps it's not too late for those conservatives who continue to accept her to make up for lost time.
It would be easy to point to various prominent leftists who have made equally reprehensible statements (though only a select few have made as many as Coulter), and I could probably write a lengthy post cataloging their assorted rhetorical sins. Ultimately, however, the stench of the other side's dirty laundry is no excuse for failing to wash your own.
UPDATE: This post by the Malcontent contains numerous links to condemnations of Coulter's CPAC speech by conservative and libertarian bloggers, and Republican presidential candidates Rudy Giuliani, John McCain, and Mitt Romney. Romney, ironically, was the speaker who immediately preceded Coulter. In his speech, he had praised her, saying: "I am happy to hear that after you hear from me, you will hear from Ann Coulter. That is a good thing." Perhaps Coulter has finally worn out her welcome on the mainstream right. If so, that would be a real "good thing." However, as I mentioned in the main post, similar hopes have been dashed in the past. So we'll just have to wait and see.
Related Posts (on one page):
- Ann Coulter and the Right:
- Appalling:
In all seriousness, please share with us the left's "dirty laundry" that smells so much. I'm sure many readers of this blog would be eager to see it.
She writes in the tradition of Mencken and the early Tyrrell (before he became an old woman), liking language.
As to being offended, come off it.
She's not a heroine to the right but a gadfly to the left.
I think Mencken must have had Coulter in mind when he wrote that "It is even harder for the average ape to believe that he has descended from man."
Go Ann!
The prosecution rests.
There's no point to getting into it, but you really can't try to claim the moral high ground for leftwing pundits here.
Liberal partisans go out of their way every day to call Cheney a war criminal or Bush a moron and everyone on the right gets their panties in a twist. Ann Coulter is a conservative fire breather, not a political consultant, not a candidate. Her job is to fire up the base.
If the Dems are spending all their time firing away at her, which she loves, they will spend less time taking shots at the candidates. Or did you think she chased away all those moderates who were going to vote Republican? Ha.
In June 2005, Senator Dick Durbin compared the American military to Nazis, the Soviet KGB, and Pol Pot’s Khmer Rouge. Is a Senator "prominent" enough for you?
Bush Assassination Exhibit at Columbia College of Art in Chicago.
Video: Dean-"Republicans are Evil"
"The Gravity of Pies"
The Myth of Liberal Tolerance
That's the best you can do? Misread -- and misstate -- a statement by Durbin (who was comparing the treatment of prisoners at GITMO to how the Nazis, KGB, and the Khmer Rouge treated their prisoners, not attacking the "American military") and cite one piece of art in a minor museum? That's your equivalent to Coulter, who headlines CPAC and appears constantly in the mainstream media? Thanks for making my point about Ilya's false equivalence between the right and the left.
And regarding Ted Rall, the two liberal bloggers, and Michael Moore -- please, by all means, post some quotes from them that you believe are as vile as Coulter's. We can then let the readership judge which side is worse.
From Ann Althouse's Blog
There is nothing funny about the proposing the killing of dissenters and establishing Christian theocracies.
I think it's just politically incorrect for you professors to want to protect gays so you're super-sensitive to this particular slur. But slurs are the sine qua non of leftwing bloggers and commentators. Ever hear Lawrence O'Donnell? Ever listen to Keith Olbermann? They are "mainstream" and much worse than Coulter.
She is, nevertheless, reckless, but at least she is intelligent. Better than Marcos Moulitsos and the other post-adolescents who control the leftwing blog universe. And they get wild applause from Dean, Edwards, etc. Or read pandagon.com, the blog by the woman fired by Edwards after he was forced into it.
So please, stop the PC and recognize the applling nature of current discourse.
Like I said on the other thread, did you even bother to read the post you linked to?
Anyway, this Ann Coulter "faggot" flap is an perfect example of outrage in search of an insult. Ilya Somin is a repeat offender, seeing insult and bigotry all over the place - remember the ludicrous assertion that not voting for atheists was "bigoted"?
Calling an obvious heterosexaul a "faggot" is just an insult; it's not bigotry against homosexuals. It's like calling a man who's weak and bad at sports a derogatory term for a woman. Crude, yes, but only a feminist lunatic could take that as an insult against women.
Coulter insulted Edwards' masculinity. She doesn't actually think he engages in public restroom sodomy. Alas, we've reached the point where we're not allowed to hold men to any standard of masculinity at all. Remember the "don't be girly-men" tempest in a teapot? I agree that insults don't belong in political discourse, but this was incredibly mild.
It's what AKNYC said, more or less: it's politically incorrect to say anything derogatory about homosexuality. You have to accept that homosexuality is every bit as good as heterosexuality, and that a preference for the same sex over the opposite sex is just as valid as a preference for Coke over Pepsi.
This is nonsense, of course. Homosexuality is inferior to heterosexuality, and pretty much everyone knows that. How many parents want to have a fruity son or a butch daughter? I don't care how enlightened you are, you still want a normal kid. It's a credit to humanity's ability to reason that almost everyone recognizes that homosexuality is an affront to Natural Law. The requirements of political correctness force us to pretend otherwise, but that doesn't change anything. Call me a bigot if you want, but the butt is not an in-hole, and it's disordered to think that it is.
I'm probably going to regret this, but please give a valid argument against homosexual predilection or activity. (Hint--nothing you have written so far constitutes a valid argument)
1) The PC Left had not defined bigotry so far downward that most Americans fit the definition of a flaming bigot, thus triggering the "boy who cried wolf" effect, and/or
2) Coulter was a man.
When Coulter writes that all liberals are traitors, she is using the same kind of exaggeration to make the point that the left-wing of the dimocrat party has consistently praised and supported enemies of this country, protected traitors like Hiss, and fought against every useful national defense system we've ever adopted.
Despite occasional mis-steps she is hardly more offensive to her opposition than Ivins, Franken, and other left-wing screeds are to theirs. She's definitely funnier than any one of them I can think of and has a larger fan club. What rankles her critics is that there is enough truth behind just about anything she writes or says, that when challenged in a fair debate her more serious arguments will end up winning converts. That makes her an extremely valuable resource for the larger right wing movement in this country. I understand that her social conservatism makes her offensive to many libertarians. That may explain this thread on the Volokh Conspiracy,
But that's hardly the point; if you had read the posts by Orin and Ilya, you'd see that it's the applause that was the most distressing part.
Are you saying she is a satirist? Give me a freaking break. She doesn't know the first thing about satire. Funny? Hardly. Her "humor" is only funny at the level of an eighth grade bully, insulting anyone who is different or they don't like. Seriously, have you seen her in a fair debate? When she does appear with someone who can intelligently debate her she just shouts them down, insults them and retreats in a huff. It's pathetic.
I'm pretty sure I've got a lower tolerance for bombast, offensiveness, and shrillness than the average person, however -- Rush Limbaugh drove me crazy starting around 1996, I've never been able to watch Bill O'Reilly or Lou Dobbs for more than about three minutes at a stretch, and yes, Ann Coulter's name in a byline is sufficient for me to click away from a website. But they all do well in the marketplace.
CPAC wouldn't have invited her if they didn't think a bunch of people wanted to hear her. And they were right. Her past offensiveness didn't put them off making the invitation; why would this (sadly, not that shocking, on the Coulter scale at least) incident make them change their minds for next year? I mean, they could say "we ended the relationship because she behaved with a total lack of professionalism, friendship, and loyalty," but that would require them to be as classy as Jonah Goldberg, and would probably have to be precipitated by Coulter going completely crazy on them in the press.
Michael Moore:
"[Americans] are possibly the dumbest people on the planet... in thrall to conniving, thieving, smug pricks."
"Should such an ignorant people [(Americans)] lead the world? How did it come to this in the first place? 82 percent of us don't even have a passport! Just a handful can speak a language other than English (and we don't even speak that very well.)"
"The Iraqis who have risen up against the occupation are not 'insurgents' or 'terrorists' or 'The Enemy'. They are the REVOLUTION, the Minutemen, and their numbers will grow — and they will win."
"Hey, here’s a way to stop suicide bombings – give the Palestinians a bunch of missile-firing Apache helicopters and let them and the Israelis go at each other head to head."
I'm pretty sure the first is an obvious statement of praise, and the second is pretty obviously a joke. So which did he say -- or did he say both?
Apropos the gay issue, it is truly interesting how quickly, on this board and others, a discussion of someone publicly using the word "faggot" morphs into yet another discussion of the appropriateness of homosexuality. Whether you approve of same-sex sexuality, whether you personally think its "natural," should ideally have no bearing on whether you think gay people should be publicly held up to ridicule and contempt in front of room full of hooting right-wing college students. I would probably be considered a moderate liberal, one who strongly supports gay rights but who is open to compromise on issues like same-sex marriage in the interest of everyone getting on with their lives. Coulter and her supporters, however, do nothing but convince people like me that the conservative base really are "bigots," as their gay left adversaries love to proclaim. I've got news: the majority of the country may agree with you on gay marriage, but it does not agree with you on the underlying issue of whether gays and lesbians deserve to have a respectable place in American public life. Most people do not seem to care enough about the issue to actually make it a basis for their votes, but it is exactly this type of nastiness that gets their attention. Rudy Giuiliani, at least, gets this- which is probably why Coulter hates him so much.
You should look more closely at this episode. Coulter was fired for being anatgonistic towards the editor, not for what she wrote. From your link on the incident, Jonah Goldberg says this:
So let me be clear: We did not "fire" Ann for what she wrote, even though it was poorly written and sloppy. We ended the relationship because she behaved with a total lack of professionalism, friendship, and loyalty.
In other words, NRO had no problem with her ideas. The fact is that she is an important part of the mainstream right.
I was tempted to respond substantively, but then I thought better of it. Nothng I could tell you is anything you would consider a "valid argument." The Cult of Political Correctness teaches that homosexuality is the summit of all that is good and noble, and nothing is every going to disabuse you of that belief. Arguments against homosexuality are per se invalid.
On the other hand, if you're willing to grant that arguments from Natural Law can be valid, I'll give you an argument.
Fine, I'll give you an example (although not one that's really grounded in Natural Law): butt-sex spreads more deadly disease than any other sexual act. That's not a complete argument against all homosexual conduct, but it's a valid argument. You won't recognize it as such, so I'm not going to bother getting any more involved.
Both.
Look here.
Go to the second clip.
1) certain conservatives condemn Michael Moore type rhetoric from people like Michael Moore and assert that such views are typical of, or common among, liberals
2) Coulter makes her "faggot" remark (this time around, next time it will be something else) to enthusiastic applause at CPAC
3) sensible people condemn Coulter's remark
4) the "certain conservatives" from category 1 leap to her defense, claiming that Michael Moore uses similar rhetoric, apparently thinking that that constitutes a defense
5) so to sum up: such rhetoric from Moore is worthy of condemnation, such rhetoric from Coulter is perfectly acceptable and no big deal
6) everyone else can see this incident as another example of what's gone wrong with the Republican party since the days of Goldwater and Buckley
Let's take one example: were all the arguments Coulter devoted to attacking evolutionary science just jokes? They were laughably weak and ignorant arguments: so who was she making fun of, exactly? The fact is, a heck of a lot of people buy her ideas, not as satire, but as "truth to power" with a dose of nasty.
Yes, calling someone a "faggot" or a "raghead" is funnier and more clever than pointing out that Sean Hannity doesn't know how to read a table he cites in his own book (Franken) or referring to President Bush as "shrub" (Ivins.) And yes, there is a grain of truth to her wild exaggerations, including the one about invading Muslim nations, killing their leaders and converting them to Christianity. And that is why we are in Iraq.
Actually, the reason she's popular is because the right is filled with racists, Christian nationalists, xenophobes, homophobes and dimwits who think she contributes something to national discourse with the language of a fifth grader. I feel sorriest for principled conservatives who have to tolerate the hoi pelloi that make up the Republican Party, though the fact that so many of such people are on their side should give them pause about their beliefs.
Why is there a double standard on these things?
"Nothng I could tell you is anything you would consider a "valid argument." The Cult of Political Correctness teaches that homosexuality is the summit of all that is good and noble.."
Grandiose and ridiculous exaggeration. You really believe this stuff? I don't even know any homosexuals who think this.
"Arguments against homosexuality are per se invalid."
Poisoning the well is your best foot forward. Does your version of natural law include logic?
"On the other hand, if you're willing to grant that arguments from Natural Law can be valid, I'll give you an argument."
I doubt it. Instead of Natural Law, what I expect is a thinly veiled "I get to decide what facts and values are or are not relevant."
"Fine, I'll give you an example (although not one that's really grounded in Natural Law): butt-sex spreads more deadly disease than any other sexual act."
And oral sex spreads the least, especially cunnilingus. So does that mean that you worship lesbians as the pinnacle of the good and holy? Of course not: that would require some concern for actually taking your own arguments seriously and showing consistency. But these arguments are, in fact, just toss offs.
"That's not a complete argument against all homosexual conduct, but it's a valid argument."
Nonsense. It's an argument against unprotected sex in general, or against too much "butt-sex" with too many partners. Plenty of homosexuals agree that things like bathouses were terribly bad in terms of spreading diseases. But it's not like fratboy Spring Break is much better, and the correct response is not a conversion disorder reaction against all sodomy, but rather safer sex practices and fewer casual partners in general, for everyone.
It's also a poor argument given the illicit jump from the average to the individual. Are two monogamous gay men in a committed relationship having protected (or even unprotected) anal sex really to be condemned by the argument of spreading disease? That makes no sense, and yet that's the implication you try to draw.
Cornellian, while I cannot speak for others, I am not leaping to anyone's defense. I am merely responding to Kevin Jon Heller request:
I would add that much of the Left's dirty laundry comes not in the form of sound-bites. Fascists tend to make more reprehensible statements than Communists. However, both are undoubtably evil.
For my part, I try ignore Ann Coulter as much as possible.
However, her antipathy towards homosexuals and her opposition to evolutionary biology suffice not to ever take her seriously.
This will be news to the many heterosexual couples that engage in, as you put it, 'butt-sex.'
It seems obvious to me: the people who write this blog are right of center and so they are going to be more likely to encounter and respond to things that happen within the right of center intellectual sphere. My guess is they aren't condemning Liberal X because they don't read Liberal X. They are condemning Coulter because they care about CPAC.
Personally I think it works better to police your own side.
Unfortunately, he has deliberately associated himself with Coulter, who behaves -- literally -- despicably. She spoke after him at CPAC, but her remarks broke no new ground for her. He knew what her "brand" represents, and he endorsed it, pandering to her fans. Then she endorsed him.
Romney must disassociate himself from Coulter.
My comment was a bit snarky, but I'm not nearly as hostile as you seem to think. My beliefs about homosexuality are far from PC (I believe it is properly categorized as a fetish) I am genuinely interested, but I have to say I'm unimpressed so far. Your example of sodomy (or "butt-sex", as you call it) is unconvincing. Shaking hands spreads more disease than other greetings (bowing, etc.); it doesn't follow that it's immoral.
I suppose AK endorses lesbianism over heterosexual sex. Those women who engage exclusively in lesbian sex have the lowest incidences of sexually transmitted diseases.
I have often felt the same about principled Liberals in the Democratic Party. I hope that you aren't implying that they don't exist.
You cite a series of Michael Moore's statements as "equally reprehensible" to Ann Coulter's. But what makes his comments comparable to the Coulter excresences cited by Professors Kerr and Somin?
Moore doesn't pull any punches; and you may not like his contempt for your views. (I certainly don't like his contempt for mine.) But the quotations you offer as evidence don't deliberately mis-state any verifiable facts; or indulge in any vicious ethnic, religious, sexual, etc. slurs; or call for violence against anybody.
Which are pretty much the reasons that most sensible people (including me) regard Coulter as scum.
So what's your point?
No, but for some reason we on the right are expected to wash ours, while those on the left are not. It's no different than any other dirty politics -- it would be much nicer if everybody played well together. But, as has been shown over and over, when one side plays dirty and the other does not, the side that plays dirty tends to win. I'm happy to show the same outrage at Ann Coulter's remarks as the left, in general, showed to Amanda Marcotte's anti-Christian bigotry.
It's all very sad, but it's also all very contrived.
Here you go. Bill Maher just said that it would have been good if Vice President Cheney had died in the assassination attempt in Kabul because then more people would have lived.
Michael Moore comes closest to mind as Ann Coulter's Democratic counterpart (though Al Franken comes in second). Moore satin the President's Box with Jimmy Carter at the Democratic National COnvention in 2004 and I do not remember him being condemned (or Jimmy Carter being smeared with guilt by association even though Moore was clearly his guest).
At least Ariana Huffington had the good sense and taste to remove posts on her blog where people evidently expressed displeasure that Dick Cheney was not killed in the recent boming in Afghanistan.
Do I think all Democrats believe that or agree with Michael Moore? Of course not. Do I believe that all Republicans endorse the wacked out views of Ann Coulter or Michael Savage? Of course not.
Which is why Marcotten and McEwan are still with the Edwards campaign?
This fantasy of "WE always have to apologize, but never THEM" is just bizarre. Evidently, it's part of human nature. The Nazis felt terribly oppressed by the Establishment, right up to 1933.
With Coulter, however, she is glorified on Fox News and has a pulpit there whenever she wants it, and we now see all those young republicans cheering her on.
Look, if you are going to say the liberals do it too, then how does that justify Coulter in any way? "Conservatives: We revel in the gutter as much as liberals!" Is that your new slogan?
There simply is no comparison between the likes of Amanda Marcotte and Coulter. When I actually see conservatives demanding that the no longer be given a pulpit on Fox or any other place, I will take your view seriously.
Oh for Pete's sake. That's ridiculous. How many people have even heard of Amanda Marcotte, even after the Edwards business? Coulter is writing best-sellers and being greeted like a rock star at these sorts o gatherings, and your complaining about a few posts by a little-known blogger.
Now that's desperate. I guess you'll drag out Ward Churchill next.
However, I do think that underneath her shticklech, she has ideas that she'd like to convey. Some of her ideas can be taken seriously. Many, of course, cannot.
FWIW, I don't care for Ann Coulter and dislike her rhetoric because it demeans the reasoned conversation that we need to have. But Ann Coulter's rhetoric is very comparable to modern lefty rhetoric. I am a (small l) libertarian who lives in the liberal enclave of Austin, Texas. I routinely hear hate speech of the Bill Maher kind directed against conservatives, religious folk, gun owners, Republicans, non-Austinite Texans, and anyone who is not toeing the PC line of the day. It has gotten to the point where I avoid engaging in political discussions for fear of social repercussions. Alas, that doesn't prevent lefties from coming right out in public with the most offensive and obnoxious statements presented as fact.
Charles Krauthammer put it best:
Conservatives think liberals are stupid
Liberals think that conservatives are evil.
And while they pump each other up with fake outrage over a stupid choice of words, not a single lefty blog has condemned the creepy stalking behavior of Mike Stark.
Liberals think that conservatives are evil."
Not true. Coulter has said repeatedly that liberals are evil -- that was even the title of one of her books!
Kevin P: I agree that's bad what people say to you. But those people are not earning millions of dollars based on their comments, they are not regulars on tv, they don't travel to college campuses, and they certainly do not front presidential campaigns. You should hear what conservatives have to say about gays -- just look at one commentator has written here.
But that is not the point. The point is whether Ann Coulter's remarks are beyond the pale. Either they are or they are not. You can say, well my neighbor has said worse things. So what? Does that justify Coulter's public remarks which are then broadcast nationally?
Michael Moore's comments made on 9/11 are so reprehensible that NO ONE should have taken him seriously afterward: "Many families have been devastated tonight. This just is not right. They did not deserve to die. If someone did this to get back at Bush, then they did so by killing thousands of people who DID NOT VOTE for him! Boston, New York, DC, and the planes' destination of California -- these were places that voted AGAINST Bush!"
Christopher Hitchens (certainly no conservative) provides additional critique here.
In other words, according to Michael Moore, if you voted for George W. Bush in 2000, you deserved to be killed by terrorists. Moore followed up with a dishonest film that liberals loved and which was highly honored.
So, to be clear, I am not defending Coulter. That is not my point. What I am saying that those who argue that outragious, reprehensible statements are purely a product of the right are living in a fool's paradise.
Conservatives think liberals are stupid
Liberals think that conservatives are evil.
That may be what Krauthammer believes, and he may be right, but isn't the real question whether what the liberals or conservatives believe about each other is true? They could both be right, and it would explain a great deal.
1. Democrats reject Moore as divisive, disloyal and often just wrong. Last time I saw Moore shoulder to shoulder with a politician is wasn't even a Democrat, only the oaf Nader. Coulter by contrast is embraced by some Republicans and ignored pointedly by many others. The major ones who have panned her were mostly the usual ones who aren't afraid to display integrity.
2. Coulter's appeal is that of a schoolyard bully. She calls somebody a faggot knowing that if the other kid ignores her he looks weak but if he responds, he'll look even weaker. She belittles and humiliates and that is why the audiences of die-hards and young conservatives cheer her. They're not applauding louder for her because they agree with her historical analysis of the McCarthy era, they're applauding because she spits in the face of people they detest and gets away with it. Pure schoolyard. Moore is a lot more serious. True, his interview requests are schoolyard bullying in that they are a no-win for the target: accept and be tormented on screen, reject and be mocked for cowardice. Other than that, he believes his stuff and backs it up. If he says Bush lied and killed people to give his friends oil profits (which is not the case), he will argue it all day and night because that's what he means. Coulter calls us traitors or Al Qaeda's best allies or Edwards a faggot but half the time it is meant as an insult, not a factual allegation. Tough love for liberals, she described it as once. She doesn't always distinguish which is which, but it enables her supporters to call her tongue in cheek or feisty. Classic schoolyard game play. I didn't mean it ... but it's true ... but I didn't mean it ... so true ... just kidding.
The joke was that Frank was referring back to an earlier part of the program when they were discussing McCain's use of the term "wasted" instead of "sacrificed". The joke was not what the commenters on Huffington's blog said.
There is a big difference between saying, "the policy agenda this man advances causes needless loss of life, and if he were not in a position to push that agenda (by his death, his resignation, or any other reason) those lives would not be wasted" and saying, "I think he should be killed".
If you can justify this, you can justify anything. Good try, though.
What about MM sitting in Carter's box at the 2004 DNC?
You read wrong. I wasn't comparing the criticisms of Coulter and the criticisms of "Liberal X", I was (and others were) condemning the characterization of Conservatives/Republicans in general based on Coulter's remarks without acknowledging that you could make the exact same argument for Liberals/Democrats in general based on the remarks of "Liberal X" (Rosie O'Donnel &Whoopi Goldberg would be another pair of comparable figures).
Those of us who pointed out Michael Moore's and "Liberal X's" comments were not asserting that such views were common among liberals. In fact, we were pointing out that we are intelligent enough NOT to do so, unlike what the OP's have done with these two blogs.
None of us citing the example of Liberal comments were using them to defend Coulter's remarks.
I am not sure how this is relevant. Michael Moore has made millions with his blood libel documentaries. Obnoxious rhetoric is obnoxious no matter who says it. And I happen to find more of it on the left. I lived in Salt Lake City, Utah, one of the most conservatives states in the nation, and I rarely heard this kind of hate rhetoric directed against liberals, Democrats or gays that I hear from liberal /left Austinites on a regular basis.
I am not sure what you are trying to get at. I already said above that I dislike Ann Coulter. Perhaps you should get into the habit of reading entire posts in their contexts rather than leaping onto selected statements.
Then he got a brain tumor.
AFter that, he suddenly had a change of heart. Now he started lecturing people on what how important it is to treat people civilly. He disowned his previous divisive behavior. He urged politicians to work together to solve problems, and end all the bickering, which he admitted he played a big part in. He died soon afterwards, and had a magnificient funeral at Washington Cathedral, and many of the people who spoke mentioned this change in him, and urged all the politican establishment to heed his final wisdom.
It's unfortunate that he had to have an inoperable brain tumor to have a change of heart, but better late than never. What is more sad is that the political establishment ignored his words, and made things worse.
What does this have to do with Coulter? She is doing something far more damaging than anything Atwater could have dreamed up. Worse, she admits she is doing this in large part to earn huge speaking fees.
Now, I wouldn't wish terminal illness upon anyone, even Coulter. But I wonder that if she did contract something horrible, will she suddenly see the light, as Atwater did? If she doesn't, that proves to me how small she really is. If she does, then I will no respect for someone her because she refused to learn from those who went before her.
Perhaps liberals are stupid to think that conservatives are evil? And conservatives are evil to think that liberals are stupid?
Well, some people have argued that it would have been good to kill Hitler in the 1930s, and that would have saved lives. I suppose you find those comments as mean spirited as Bill Maher's?
I agree wholeheartedly with wanting to kill Hitler to save lives - and also honestly acknowledge my desire to see him dead. Perhaps Bill Maher should do the same.
My own take on Coulter, which is hardly original, is that she is a bomb-thrower, the "naughty girl" who says offensive things that others holding her political views may think, but don't dare to say out loud themselves. That is why she is popular Her whole shtick is to try to combine a possibly valid criticism or observation with some language that she knows will offend some group that is an anathema to conservative Republicans.
So, her comment on Edwards is typical: She combined a valid (to me) point to ridicule the silly penchant for famous people to "go to rehab" after they do something socially inacceptable (Mark Foley, the actor on Grey's Anatomy), with the word "faggot" to imply something about Edwards' "pretty boy" or smooth appearance. It provoked applause among some right-wing Republicans, who don't like Edwards and probably don't like gay rights much and who may regret that the word is no longer considered socially acceptable in polite conversation (but secretly wish is still was). I think this is why Coulter is so popular and sells so many books. My advice: ignore her completely, and watch how extreme she gets in her rhetoric to get the attention she craves.
["ann coulter" c**t] (rhymes with bundt)----- 53,100
["ann coulter" whore]----------------------------- 317,000
["ann coulter" slut]--------------------------------- 117,000
["ann coulter" f**ktard]--------------------------- 14,000
["ann coulter" nazi]-------------------------------- 394,000
The nutroots that are complaining and moaning about this can't even mention her name without calling her something they wouldn't say in front of their grandmothers.
In fact, these lefty victim-ists can hardly even type a sentence without using vulgarity. They've collectively called her every name in the book. They call the beloved Michelle Malkin a "chink c**t" and a "twinkie" on a REGULAR BASIS. And they were mad, shocked!, when Rush ragged on Chelsea.
The double standard is quite striking. Which is why I don't even engage these people in conversation anymore.
Look, over the past 5 years the Left has jettisoned all right to object to this sort of thing. You don't remember all the nastiness because the press didn't fixate on it like they do on the things Ann Coulter says.
When Whoopie Goldberg compared Pres. Bush to her pubic hairs, the crowd laughed. Some applauded. Does that make her some sort of spokeswoman for the Democrats? Or how about all the vulgar/insane things that have come out of Alec Baldwin or Sean Penn over the years? Perhaps Sen. Obama should apologize for them, right? (Remember when that crazy-guy Alec wanted to gather a crowd and beat Henry Hyde and his family to death? Or when he called President Bush a "Constitution-hating sociopath," and a "hate-filled maniac"? I could go on and on and on, but what's the point?)
This is a tempest in a teapot, and pontificating about which side has the moral high ground is a waste of time. I don't like Ann Coulter because she says pointlessly inflammatory and vulgar things. But her words and her "career" says nothing much about the Republican party.
(Now here's a question-- which "controversy" will get more coverage at the WashPost, NYTimes, LATimes, CNN, ABC, NBC, MSNBC? Whoopie Goldberg's comments, or Ann Coulter's?)
OK, I was unaware of that. I wouldn't have invited him to my box ... are there other cases? Is he a regular at Dem events? I thought he wasn't but I could be wrong.
Which is why Marcotten and McEwan are still with the Edwards campaign?
This fantasy of "WE always have to apologize, but never THEM" is just bizarre.
Hardly. The firing of Marcotten and McEwan was condemned loudly on the left, not praised. Further, of course, Edwards did not immediately fire them, but instead tried to keep them. It was only after he realized that he would pay dearly for it that he got rid of them. If that's the paradigm for how to treat this kind of thing, then I suppose you believe that the correct thing to do is to start blathering about First Amendment rights, becoming outraged and any ill-treatment of her for her words, and condemning any rightist who criticizes her as pandering to the left.
The argument "the left does it, so they can't criticize us" is nonsense. That would make us just as bad as them. Should we start filibustering judges if a Dem wins?
rally with picture
Clark website
Moore and Coulter are each other's flip sides. Too bad we can't lock them both in a room to fight to the death . . . and forget to let the winner out.
Nick
There are folks on the left who are surely even worse than Coulter (though none of them have her relative popularity). His point was that this doesn't matter as an excuse for her behavior. Yet the response of some of the commenters is to utterly ignore the key point of the post.
"[Americans] are possibly the dumbest people on the planet" is a verifiable fact and is not vicious? OK...
My original point was simply to respond to Kevin Jon Heller's first post and point out that there are people on the Left that say hateful and vicious things. I personally felt it was important to respond to his post because too many on the Left are too quick to assume moral superiority versus their opposition.
AntonK,
While I am impressed with your ability to use the Intertubes and the Google, I am not sure that yourr post addressed the point at hand. I replicated some of your search techniques with Michael Moore and I received the following results:
-rhymes classhole: 228,000
-f***tard: 12,800
-communist: 451,000
-bastard: 576,000
This proves what, exactly? That people who with internet accounts use vulgarity? Again, the problem is that Ms. Coulter is regularly paraded by mainstream conservative media as representative of all conservatives. This is the problem the OPs and, I think, most thoughtful conservatives would have. If Air America had on a guest who publicly called for poisoning Scalia, I think they should be disavowed. If a Al Franken were to call McCain a faggot, I think that would be wrong.
That Ann Coulter is defended by conservatives leads me to believe that the movement has jumped the shark, much as the liberal movement did in the 70s and 80s.
Question:?? How is this a faggot joke as Orin and Illya have called it. This isn't a joke about homosexuals or homosexuality. It appears to be comment about PC sensitivity to the use of certain words. How is that different from George Carlin's 10 dirty words routine in its day? I'll give you she is no where near as funny as Carlin, but this does not appear to me to be a faggot joke as is claimed by the bloggers here.
This all seems like a lot of outrage over something that when read or viewed on video is not a big deal at all.
At least that's how I see it.
Says the "Dog"
I was going to say something about people with italicized signature lines, but I found out that it is poor form to call people morons on the volokh board.
See how it works?
I didn't insult morons!
And I didn't insult people with italicized signature lines either.
As you deftly pointed out, it's just a joke about people with PC sensitivities who just don't get it. Now I'm as clever as George Carlin, too!
Well, the very first post on this thread, by Kevin Jon Heller read, in relevant part:
As a result, I was responding to his challenge, even though I read Ilya's last paragraph as well.
By the way, I have yet to see a post denouncing Moore also defending Coulter.
Oh, and Loki, the fact that Michael Moore is a respected figure in some Democratic circles says much too--but at least I didn't see Ann Coulter sitting in George H.W. Bush's box at the Republican National Convention.
Even assuming it is a reference, isn't she still saying that Edwards is a "faggot"?
Let's say I said "I was doing to say something about JunkYardLawDog, but I forgot that you get visited by an exorcist if you say 'You mother sucks c**ks in Hell.'" Clearly, that's a reference to a line from The Exorcist, but does that in any way change the fact that I'm saying that your mother does what the line says she does?
The meta-joke analysis falls flat.
Nick
I am not all that worked up about the recent Coulter/faggot stuff. I think she's said a lot worse stuff (the poisoning/invading type stuff) that makes me wonder a lot more about the mindset of the people who make her popular enough to speak at CPAC in the first place.
The reason I'm posting is because I haven't even heard of most of the supposed liberals who were cited here by some as supposedly saying Really Awful Things.
As for the two (yes, only two) I have heard of ... I haven't seen or heard anything at all from Michael Moore in a long time, which suggests that he isn't reaching nearly the audience Coulter does. And, FWIW, Bill Maher identifies himself as a libertarian.
And when I say I, "haven't heard from", that includes listening fairly regularly to Air America radio, watching Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert, and picking up a lot of my news links from www.rawstory.com, www.truthout.com and the like. So, if I'm not coming across those other people, it's a pretty solid call that they don't have an audience that bears any comparison to Ann C's.
Right and left both have their fringes, and neither one deserves to be judged by them. You can always make the opposition out to be idiots and barbarians by pointing at their idiots and barbarians. That's just a stupid tactic that people on both sides use to make themselves feel good.
However, when large enough numbers of people gravitate to someone like Ann Coulter to regularly give her a large audience on the national stage, that's not the fringe. Maybe she says she just jokes about poisoning judges and invading countries and forcibly converting them, but, be that as it may, I have to wonder about an audience that enjoys that kind of alleged humor. I know of nothing comparably mainstream on the left, and I doubt it would succeed if tried.
No, I don't think that the right is "evil". However, to the extent that some mainstream elements of the right are willing to actively engage the lowest, most anti-social elements and instincts in order to assure their own power, I do think those mainstream elements are behaving amorally. IMO the fact that there is no sufficiently large protest in the ranks to force them to abandon this tactic should be seen as a warning flag to those concerned about the future of conservatism in this country. (Actually, I see it as just one of the warning flags, but I won't go into that here.)
I also find that amorality an interesting juxtaposition to all of the railing about morality that often comes from the same quarters, IMO.
1. Again, if your only defense is a.... "But Michael Moore!" then I am sad for you. Modern conservatives are not the inheritors of Goldwater. Modern conservatives are the inheritors of Urkel.
2. If Michael Moore were to announce, in front of one of the most important gatherings of liberals of the year (the Oscars?) that he was supporting Hillary, and prefaced his remark by saying that he couldn't call John McCain a faggot, because that was too un-PC.....
yeah... I would be outraged. And I would demand that the Clinton campaign disavow the comments. I already take Mr. Moore's comments with more than a grain of salt, as he is a divisive propogandist who does not speak to me- I would in no way defend his comments, as so many seem eager to do with Ms. Coulter's comments.
1. It seems there is mostly agreement that Coulter says terrible things to get attention.
2. Imagine a list of anti-Bush insults from the last six years, from Democrats, media pundits, talk show hosts, actors, comedians, musicians, activists - in particular the anti-war crowd and the 9-11 conspiracy nuts...
Now consider the importance and seriousness of each. Some applause for questioning the sexuality of a Democrat versus the visceral hatred from those who consider Bush to be a terrorist, a fraud, currently abusing drugs and alcohol, engaged in genocide everywhere from the Middle East to New Orleans to the WTC, etc, etc.
Coulter makes it harder to be a conservative and I'm all for shunning her, but at the end of the day I think the poison in today's political dialogue makes her remark about Edwards rather insignificant in comparison.
Since you quoted only a portion of my last comment, I must assume that I must be among commentators who "seem eager to [defend] Ms. Coulter's comments.
Before you start throwing stones, it might help if you READ what is said. Point to ONE place where I defended Coulter. ONE.
Or apologize. I doubt you have the stomach to do either.
is one of those political statements that is both true** and slimy. Since Republicans controlled the Senate from 1995-2001, they simply did not grant Clinton's nominees hearings and votes on the floor, instituted a blue slip system, etc. Rupblicans blocked a whole lot more of Clinton nominees than Democrats have blocked Bush nominees.
**Republicans did filibuster at least one Clinton nominee, Richard Paez, but a cloture vote succeeded.
We have gone from "Rum, Romanism, and rebellion" to "faggot".
Is it possible in 2007 (if it ever was) to use the word faggot as the punchline of a joke? What is it with social conservatives that they seem so weirdly preoccupied with people attacted to the same sex?
My first question was going to be, "Who is Ted Rall?" Then I realized this was a dumb question, what with google at my fingertips ...
What I found was that the cartoon you quoted (available as of now, at least, at http://www.gocomics.com/rallcom/) showed a *PARODY* of a liberal throwing around over-the-top names like that. If you think that is a sentiment that Ted Rall was somehow backing, you need to go back and read it again. And again, and again, until you figure out what's going on there.
I apologize that my caps lock key is more functional than yours.
As you ably pointed out, you never defended Coulter. You simply (mis)directed everyone to look at Michael Moore's comments instead. Which Is what my post was about.
I note that you complain that others use Ms. Coulter as a strawman with which to beat the Republican party. She would not be so useful if those on the right explicitly disavowed her, instead of either:
a) applauding and cheering
b) purchasing her books
c) booking her regularly on Fox
d) inviting her to address large conservative gatherings
e) comparing her comments to strawmen they dig up on the left
And in the previous Ted Rall cartoon, he addresses the Vice President Cheney assassination attempt.
And Lyndon LaRouche self-identifies as a Democrat.
If you call a dog's tail a leg, how many legs does a dog have?
Did you see what was on the wall in the Cheney assassination attempt cartoon? Who was the target of that cartoon?
From wikipedia link on Ted Rall:
Unexpected attacks on sacred cows led to a reputation for unorthodox politics. He was, for example, one of the few liberal cartoonists to call for Bill Clinton's impeachment for lying under oath. He is also opposed to gun control legislation.
Umm.... you've shown that you've missed the concepts of 2/4 jokes (I only thought the 1st Bush cartoon was over the top, the second was a satirical take on the govt's secrecy stand), and you don't like the works of an obscure liberal cartoonist.
What was your point?
I'm pretty sure the first is an obvious statement of praise, and the second is pretty obviously a joke. So which did he say -- or did he say both?
Romney DID say the first. I heard it myself on C-Span Radio. Don't know if he said the second.
Your points are well-taken. My point about Michael Moore is that the same thing could be said about him. He made one of his most outrageous remarks on 9/11/01. Other than Christopher Hitchens, point to one prominent Democrat who disavowed him. Instead, he was honored at the Democratic National Convention in 2004.
For that matter, though it is between them and the IRS, I suspect that in the five years since 9/11, Michael Moore has made more money spewing hate than Ann Coulter has.
I think the one significant thing is that Coulter was invited to speak at CPAC. That's the real issue. If Michael Moore were invited to speak at a meeting of Dem presidential candidates, it would be similar, though I don't think he would be.
Ted Rall, by the way, has been disavowed by at least the mainstream of Dems. He actually was the first to attack the 9-11 widows, but the response to this was for newspapers such as the Washington Post to cancel him as a cartoonist.
Since you did not know who Ted Rall was you can be excused for thinking this might have been an aberration. I tried to convey what you were saying by stating he "cleverly" used the expression I quoted. But you should just realize that he has said far worse on many occasions. This was his way of saying something terribly derogatory in the same way that Coulter did, not saying it while still saying it. If you are into parsing than parse Coulter. They both are very clever and know exactly what they said.