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.
Do you think that Rall favors ninth-month abortions, too? The liberal in the comic you cite takes that position, also. It's quite obvious to anyone not looking to cherry-pick a quote in support of the "liberals are just as bad as Ann Coulter" argument that, as I said above, the point of Rall's cartoon is to lampoon the far-left view of conservatives, and the polarized political culture. In fact, by jumping on the "minutement fascists" comment much like the conservative in the last frame jumps on the abortion comment, you're pretty much proving his point.
"And, FWIW, Bill Maher identifies himself as a libertarian. "
And Lyndon LaRouche self-identifies as a Democrat.
If you call a dog's tail a leg, how many legs does a dog have?
I haven't had a chance to see Maher functioning under a Democratic administration, but this seems thoroughly plausible to me. A lot of libertarians are very unhappy with the current administration and the Republican party in general (including the only one I know personally). Also, views held by at least some libertarians are quite different from those of social conservatives, so there can be large partings of the ways there. (For example, he has said he thinks (currently illegal) drugs should be legalized - not a view popular among liberals, btw.)
Here is one quote from that Google source:
Rall - a 1996 Pulitzer Prize finalist whose cartoons appear in more than 100 newspapers nationwide - harped on the media ubiquity of the terror widows, plus the piles of money many made since the attacks. He also mocked broadcast news for milking the grief of terror survivors for stories during the Winter Olympics and other events.
"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."
My main point wasn't that there aren't liberals out there who make over-the-top or irresponsible statements. It was that most of those I saw being cited here weren't ones I was personally familiar with, and that I was therefore quite sure that they didn't have the popularity and audience (and therefore significance) that Coulter has.
"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."
No, I didn't read it that way at all. He wasn't being cute or sly about it; he was just presenting this stuff as being totally over-the-top.
James Dillon wrote:
[snip] In fact, by jumping on the "minutement fascists" comment much like the conservative in the last frame jumps on the abortion comment, you're pretty much proving his point.
I'd have to agree with that. :-/
the point of Rall's cartoon is to lampoon the far-left view of conservatives, and the polarized political culture. In fact, by jumping on the "minutement fascists" comment much like the conservative in the last frame jumps on the abortion comment, you're pretty much proving his point.
"I was going to have a few comments about John Edwards but you have to go into rehab if you use the word faggot'"
The point of Coulter is to lampoon the pc anti free speech beliefs of liberals, and the polarized political culture. In fact, by jumping on the "faggot" comment you're pretty much proving her point.
Will the 2008 GOP Convention have to be broadcast with a five second delay to allow for the bleeping out of various obscenities (no doubt, relayed to the hooping &hollering laughter of the Party faithful)?
Its not Edwards that's damaged by this event (hardly a poor "choice of words"). He'll get attention and money as a result and won't lose a single vote. Who is hurt are the polite, dedicated, moderate Republican voters who must be questioning right now which political party BEST represents their values. (One possible test ... which party's events you can allow you children to listen to.)
It's quite obvious from Coulter's quote that she intended the audience to infer that the word "faggot" applies to John Edwards. It's equally obvious that Rall does not intend his audience to infer that all conservatives are "minutemen fascists," but instead intends to make fun of liberals who demonize their political adversaries in that manner. Again-- do you think that Rall favors ninth-months abortions? The liberal in his comic is clearly intended as an over-the-top caricature, and an object of derision, not as a proxy of Rall's actual views.
I don't understand your point here -- Bill Maher holds views that differ from social conservatives, therefore he isn't a Democrat?!
Your point seems to be that Maher is against the war in Iraq and against the administration, and some libertarians are against the war in Iraq and against the administration, therefore Maher is a libertarian. Not quite.
Bill Maher is in favor of strong gun control, has advocated taxation for social engineering, and more frequently takes the side of Democrats than Republicans on his shows. I have very little doubt that in the last two presidential elections, he voted for the Democratic candidate.
Other than being for the legalization of drugs (which, by the way, William F. Buckley and other political conservatives also have advocated, as have quite a large number of liberals), in what ways is Maher a libertarian?
At this exact second in time, there are 6000 middle schoolers calling someone or something 'gay',and not in a good way. There are about the same number of black kids, calling some other black kid, a "nigga", possibly in a good way, possibly not. And none of them have ever heard of Ann Coulter.
There is a whole cottage industry on the left and the right that spend an inordinate amount of time looking around for things to be outraged about. And there are some fairly rich people like Ann Coulter, and Micheal Moore that love it.
Mike G in Corvallis wrote:
I don't understand your point here -- Bill Maher holds views that differ from social conservatives, therefore he isn't a Democrat?!
No, I'm saying that the fact that he speaks against things supported by social conservatives does not mean he's a Democrat.
Your point seems to be that Maher is against the war in Iraq and against the administration, and some libertarians are against the war in Iraq and against the administration, therefore Maher is a libertarian. Not quite.
I'm not building an argument that he's a libertarian, I'm saying that he says it and I don't see any reason to disbelieve him.
Bill Maher is in favor of strong gun control, has advocated taxation for social engineering, and more frequently takes the side of Democrats than Republicans on his shows. I have very little doubt that in the last two presidential elections, he voted for the Democratic candidate.
I can't speak to the issues you say he supports (and I don't take other people's words on these things, sorry). As to his voting for Democrats ... the one libertarian in my personal circle told me in 2004 that he was definitely not voting for Bush, and that if there seemed any doubt about Kerry winning his state that he would "hold his nose" and vote for Kerry. So, you might be right about Bill Maher voting Democratic in 2004, at least. I just don't see that that would make him not-a-libertarian.
As for his more frequently taking the side of Democrats rather than Republicans on his show ... that would make sense in any case, because Republicans have had far more power and therefore provided much richer targets. (Pun accidental, but I'll intend it after the fact ... :)
Other than being for the legalization of drugs (which, by the way, William F. Buckley and other political conservatives also have advocated, as have quite a large number of liberals), in what ways is Maher a libertarian?
I can't say either way. I mostly get to see him on CNN/Larry King, since I don't get his home channel, which means very occasionally. I just don't have any reason to disbelieve him when he says he's a libertarian.
That's a crock of sh*t. The "faggot" comment is far from her most offensive. How does the statement
lampoon anyone or anything?
The point of Coulter is to make money for Coulter, and it is a damned shame that she has an audience. She is not lampooning the polarized political culture; she is nurturing it.
Let's not be silly, this is the enjoyable part of politics. The boring pontificating and attempts at appearing mainstrean (while the record says otherwise) is worthy of some ridicule.
Mencken may not have admired Ann, but I'm pretty sure she would have some respect for his style and sentiment.
i have precisely the opposite reaction. i have no problem with her "manners." it's not some priggish distaste for hyperbole (of course she doesn't REALLY think that they should have blown up the times building).
what's problematic with her is substance. she's a vain and varnished idiot. she has precisely the inflexibility that is most intolerable in intolerant idealogues. but what's troublesome - as many point out - is the reflexivity with which she is defended by a group of people who consider it their responsibility to superintend our country's manners.
she's like michael more. so plainly in love with herself. anne coulter is not "threatening," she's a joke. many have expressed concern about her using others (the jersey girls) as vehicles for making political points. who cares about that? what's upsetting to me is that many conservatives use her as a vehicle to make theirs. it is for precisely that reason that posts like these are noteworthy and nice to see.
Living and working in NYC I am mostly surrounded by liberals. My personal city council district went 84%-16% Democratic (and the Republican candidate was active, I met him twice campaigning on the street). Maybe its a comfort level from large numbers of people with similar views but when listening, talking and debating here in NYC I get the strong feeling they see absolutely nothing wrong with calling their political opponents- Fascists, Nazis, Uncle Toms, Oreos, Ignorant, Stupid, Scabs or Pigs. If your feelings are hurt well just too bad maybe because they think it's probably true. But if they are called by any of the right's favorite derogatory terms they get really really insulted. BTW, Al Franken just announced his official candidacy for Senator from Minnesota.
It would be wonderful if both sides could hold these discussions on a more elevated level but as was said earlier whoever gets into the mud the deepest often wins the election. Hillary has already seen the need to attack, and it's her own party. And it is still almost 2 years before the election. Both sides are trying to rally their troops and will do whatever it takes. For some it is the stupid unnecessary use of the word faggot, for others it is wishing Cheney were killed.
At this exact second in time, there are 6000 middle schoolers calling someone or something 'gay',and not in a good way. There are about the same number of black kids, calling some other black kid, a "nigga", possibly in a good way, possibly not. And none of them have ever heard of Ann Coulter.
There is a difference between "nigga" and "nigger." That difference is important in understanding why saying "that is so gay" and defending it on the grounds that "i only meant that it is stupid" does not involve the same usage conventions.
If the both of you are unable to see the difference between your rather crude and patently different affirmative statements of derision and Ms. Coulter's non-affirmative statement, then I'm afraid you both aren't even smart enough to get the humor in Ms. Coulter's hyperbole or in George Carlin's 10 dirty words.
In fact if either of you are lawyers it would be interesting to see if you could recognize the difference between a direct and leading question as there is just as much difference in those two forms of questions as in your examples and Ms. Coulter's statement.
Says the "Dog"
Couldn't you conservatives just put up a sign on the CPAC dorrs saying "faggots not welcome"? You'd save money.
Seriously, if this is what your base is fired up by, you've made it clear GLBT people neve no palce in the GOP. Thanks. It's good to get that out in the open.
Now, can you go on to reveal Ann's rabid anti-athiesm, and tell the athiests to go stand by the faggots? And the Muslims too?
Let's have a GOP that says what it's 'base' means. Please go ahead.
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.
So, you're comparing such things (Cheney/war criminal, Bush/moron) to Coulter calling Edwards a faggot (or earlier calling Gore the same)?
These latter are just name-calling, no different from what happened in second grade. The others, at least Cheney/war criminal, are intended as serious political commentary and analysis (as are some comments you may be summarizing as "Bush is a moron", that may actually have been something like "Bush is intellectually lazy").
Now, you may not LIKE some of these comments, and you may not AGREE with them, but ... they are part of legitimate political discourse. Just like when someone on the right calls a Democrat a socialist over one thing or another. I may roll my eyeballs a bit, but I recognize it as a political opinion.
What Coulter does is more on the level of mooning someone. When she goes beyond that to comments involving poisoning/blowing up/etc., I'd say she's going well beyond that into a whole new realm of ugliness.
I'm puzzled by the claims of some that Coulter uses hyperbole as humor. When Stephen Colbert says something over-the-top, I know it's humor because of the context: he's a liberal spoofing a right-wing commentator; he doesn't actually mean any of it. When Coulter does it .. heck, she's so far out there herself, how do you believe you can tell when she means it, and when she's gone just a bit further as a joke? I don't get it; please explain.
Amen.
Also, to lampoon the "going into rehab" trend whenever a liberal comes out with truly vile speach as a means of "redemption".
As for a "mainstream" Democrat who says things just as vile if not more so than Ann Coulter given their position in the Democratic Party, Howard Dean anyone? Al Gore, also, comes to mind.
My statement and hers are absolutely indistinguishable. She said she would call Edwards a faggot, but for the consequences of saying such a thing. I said that I would say that your mother sucks c**cks in hell, but for the consequences of saying such a thing. They hold the same same "affirmative" posture.
I am astonished that you think there is any rational differentiation to be made.
I think Josh_Jasper was quoting someone, though I can't find the quoted material earlier in the thread.
Speaking for himself, he says things more like "Seriously, if this is what your base is fired up by, you've made it clear GLBT people neve no palce in the GOP."
Is this somehow not clear? Republicans nearly uniformly oppose gay marriage and most gay rights period. It's a pretty simply analysis: pandering to homosexuals will alienate 20-25% of the electorate, while (assuming all GLBTs vote based on GLBT issues) attempting to gain the support of 2-4%, who are predisposed to like Democrats anyway. So let's consider: lose 20% to pick up 2%? Sounds like a great idea.
In defense of the liberals, I don't think they are seriously suggesting Cheney is a war criminal etc. Lots of people say Bush should be impeached; I imagine most would jump ship quite quickly if it actually came to that.
While I lack your years of Matlock viewing, and hence the ability to stand up and yell, "That's a leading question, yer h'nor!" I am aware of the distinction. What it has to do with Ms. Coulter's comment is a mystery wrapped in an enigma, however.
Perhaps you would like to train your view of her comments on the following legal distinction- how would how comments be viewed if this was a suit for defamation? You may have seen this in an LA Law rerun, but bear with me as I try to grapple my feeble mind around the issues involved:
- Is there an affirmative statement defaming Edwards? Could such a statement be implied by the internal context of the statement? Most importantly, would this be libel by implication (would the average listener infer a false and defamatory conclusion from Ms. Coulter's statements)?
Alas, there couldn't be a real suit here (insults and name-calling are usually exempt, and given Ms. Coulter's predilections, it is unlikely an average listener would take her seriously). Nevertheless, for you to hinge your distinction on some difference between an affirmative statement and a George Carlin routine is.... funny.
Says the stupid signature line
I can't speak to should, but let's be real: of course you will. Before Republicans took over, there were many different rules that the minority could use to block Democratic appointments (that's why far fewer of Clinton's appointments ever made it than Bush's). They dismantled all of these so that the Dems only option left was filibuster. Either the Democrats will put them back, or the Republicans will just threaten filibusters as well. That's just power politics. The idea that Republicans ever cared about the principle of the thing was simply laughable. If you bought into it, you are a fool.
Oh, thanks for the correction, Michelle Dulak Thomson. I see that now. apologies to Josh_Jasper. Not to the one I should have named, though. :-)
Examples please? For I have never seen her held out as "representative of all conservatives." If it's "regularly" done, you must have numerous examples at hand.
This hideous face of the Republican Party has been obvious to those who have been paying attention for a long, long time. It is the single most important reason why our politics have devolved into a filthy grudge match.
For a long time liberals were paralyzed or indifferent as the GOP demonized liberalism as the root of every problem and pathology in American society. Liberals were derided as unamerican, treasonous and evil.
And all of this was after Bill Clinton had moved the party to the center, had governed as a bipartisan compromiser and the Republicans impeached him anyway. Clearly, the Democratic party was blind if they didn't take the Republicans at their threatening words.
When Limbaugh said, "I tell people don't kill all the liberals. Leave enough so we can have two on every campus - living fossils - so we will never forget what these people stood for," I do not doubt him anymore.
When Ann Coulter said "we need to execute people like John Walker in order to physically intimidate liberals, by making them realize that they can be killed, too. Otherwise, they will turn out to be outright traitors," to rapturous applause at the 2002 CPAC, I knew she wasn't just kidding.
And, yes, when Andrew Sullivan said that liberals in blue enclaves formed a fifth column, you'll have to forgive me for assuming he was among the people who wished to see me jailed or dead.
It continues today. Dinesh D'Souza just published a book saying that liberals are the cause of terrorism. Ramesh Ponneru calls liberals "The Party of Death." And Michele Malkin creates a career out of calling the left is "Unhinged" and the Washington Post treats her like she's discovered the Holy Grail.
I previously wrote:
when listening, talking and debating here in NYC I get the strong feeling they see absolutely nothing wrong with calling their political opponents- Fascists, Nazis, Uncle Toms, Oreos, Ignorant, Stupid, Scabs or Pigs. If your feelings are hurt well just too bad maybe because they think it's probably true. But if they are called by any of the right's favorite derogatory terms they get really really insulted.
Then to try and prove my point:
Southernwood 7 wrote:
I'm puzzled by the claims of some that Coulter uses hyperbole as humor. When Stephen Colbert says something over-the-top, I know it's humor because of the context: he's a liberal spoofing a right-wing commentator; he doesn't actually mean any of it. When Coulter does it .. heck, she's so far out there herself, how do you believe you can tell when she means it, and when she's gone just a bit further as a joke? I don't get it; please explain
That is exactly as I was saying. If we say it is obviously humor but if you say it you must mean it and are meanspirited. I don't want to be put in the position of defending her nor Al Franken etc. They are humorists, are trying to get a laugh and make money. They often go a little too far.
If Coulter is reading this blog she is laughing. She's a ringmaster and she gets a bunch of people running around in circles nipping at each other. She does it over and over, and the PC crowd jumps higher each time. I admire her abilty to manipulate otherwise intelligent people.
Exactly. She's intellectually irrelevant. The only reamains relevant as a popular figure is her ability to trigger the gasp! reflex.
Maher show
Except that isn't what she said. If you are going to get your panties all in wad, at least try to get the quotes correct. She did not make such an affirmative statement of derision. Please look up the quote and then write it down and diagram the sentence. She made absolutely no affirmations about Edwards whatsoever.
BTW, I just heard from hell. My mother says she would tell you your mother likes to lick her a** (but only after your mother first brushes her teeth because your mother's mouth is just that nasty) however she won't tell you that because she doesn't want to go to rehab.
She also noted that your mother's nasty mouth apparently lives on in her descendants.
Loki,
Perhaps you would like to stick to the subject and answer the simple question where in what Ann Coulter said did she make an AFFIRMATIVE statement of derision about Edwards. Otherwise just admit that you childish school yard analogy completely missed the point because your childish attempts at an insult contained a direct affirmation of derision unlike Ms. Coulter's statements.
Says the "Dog"
I previously wrote:
when listening, talking and debating here in NYC I get the strong feeling they see absolutely nothing wrong with calling their political opponents- Fascists, Nazis, Uncle Toms, Oreos, Ignorant, Stupid, Scabs or Pigs. If your feelings are hurt well just too bad maybe because they think it's probably true. But if they are called by any of the right's favorite derogatory terms they get really really insulted.
I have to wonder; I live in northern NJ and don't routinely encounter people ragging on people of whatever political persuasion when out and about. Who are "they"?
Also (since I'm not sure what your point is with this) there is a big difference between what just regular folks say to one another on line at the deli or at a party, and what a political group that claims to be responsible (I hope CPAC does?) puts up on a stage in front of hundreds of thousands or millions of people. The bar is a bit higher, there are some standards.
And, while we're at it ... there are some words there that sound like they would have come up in connection with specific perceived grievances. For example, "scab" refers to a "replacement worker" during a strike.
JerryW wrote:
Then to try and prove my point:
Southernwood 7 wrote:
I'm puzzled by the claims of some that Coulter uses hyperbole as humor. When Stephen Colbert says something over-the-top, I know it's humor because of the context: he's a liberal spoofing a right-wing commentator; he doesn't actually mean any of it. When Coulter does it .. heck, she's so far out there herself, how do you believe you can tell when she means it, and when she's gone just a bit further as a joke? I don't get it; please explain
That is exactly as I was saying. If we say it is obviously humor but if you say it you must mean it and are meanspirited. I don't want to be put in the position of defending her nor Al Franken etc. They are humorists, are trying to get a laugh and make money. They often go a little too far.
Uh, so how was I proving your point? I asked a sincere question: what she says apparently in all sincerity is pretty far out there. How can you tell what she really means and what is just a bit of hyperbole for entertainment's sake?
And, if you think you have a way to tell, are you sure that the other people who listen to her remember to go only so far with her, and no further?
Also, since you specifically compare Al Franken to Ann Coulter ... I listened to Al Franken often enough on Air America, including a few interviews of various conservatives, including Pat Buchanan. The interviews were cordial and respectful in tone, some good-natured kidding around. No yelling, no cutting anyone off. No insults. No venom. Just not much in common with Annie, IMO. Or Rush, or Michael S.
And then Ann Coulter responds about the criticisms:
Now come on, that's damn funny stuff. You gotta give her that.
Says the "Dog"
You were misinformed about Lee Atwater being the instigator of the Willie Horton ads. The first one came from none other than the wonderful Al Gore. Remember him?
Anecdotal evidence is of course impossible to falsify, but I would note that, living in NYC myself, I have never heard the terms "Uncle Tom," "Oreo," "Scab," or "Pig" used to refer to a political opponent or adversary. Not once. It seems to me that certain elements of the left and the right are, unfortunately, about equally prone to referring to their opponents as "Fascists" or "Nazis" ("Islamofascists," anyone?) And, while the terms "stupid" and "ignorant" are perhaps invoked too readily, again by both sides of the political divide, they're not always inaccurate, either.
For example, blacks can use the word "nigger" but are insulted by its use. White democratic senators can also use the word, but are not insulted by its use. Homosexuals can use the word "faggot" and can also be insulted by its use. Blacks can use the word "Honky" but whites are not insulted by its use. Heterosexuals cannot use the word "faggot," but homosexuals can use the word "breeder" referring to heterosexuals. Homosexuals males are also allowed to call white females "drag queens," but heterosexual white females cannot call homosexual females "drag queens." But heterosexuals are not allowd to be insulted by the word "breeder."
We can see the combinations get quite complicated, and one needs a guide to use the full range of available vocabulary yet still take advantage of all opportunities to be insulted.
A side table could list all groups across the top, and the same groups down the side. At each group/group intersection a code would indicate if that group may be insulted by proxy if an insult is received by the other. This would greatly multiply occasions of insult, and stimulate the faltering market for red velvet fainting couches.
Laminated wallet cards could be made for US senators and junior faculty up for tenure.
"I was going to have a few comments about John Edwards but you have to go into rehab if you use the word 'faggot,'" Coulter said.
Are you in complete denial?
OK, now you've got the quote correct. That quote does not make a direct affirmation that John Edwards is a faggot. It does NOT state how she would have used the word faggot in discussing Edwards. For all we know from that sentence she could have gone on to say John Edwards is not a faggot.
Therefore, as I stated originally, its not a direct affirmation of derision unlike the example you tried to provide.
Says the "Dog"
LOL, that was good.
Says the "Dog"
Turd Blossom (Google it if you don't get the reference)
That said, one other observations:
I'm a gay man and, forgive me, but I think I've paid more attention to how men look and how they get to look they way they do than most of you guys. Edwards doesn't "preen". He's lucky enough to have that naturally handsome look that some Southern men have. He looks just as good in a suit as he does walking down the beach with his jeans rolled up. And he doesn't have to work at it. You want to talk about preening and precise grooming? Look at Romney. THAT guy spends a lot of time in front of the mirror every day. Trust me.
I suggest her popularity among friends and foes alike is due to the ungodly boring character of public discourse in the country. Candidates are running everything through focus groups, lawyers, and pollsters while the media sits around with a list of taboo words waiting for a slip and various sensitives fall from the vapors - shocked, appalled, agog, and aghast.
We love Coulter, Moore, Franken, and O'Reilly. They are the only ones who put forth any real passion in political discourse. Presidential debates have become scripted set pieces designed to give equal time to TV news anchors. Campaign speeches are carefully crafted and delivered to hand picked audiences of supporters. And each campaign has an inventory of messages custom made for the ethnic group of the day.
Coulter's appearance is getting more coverage and comment than any other single event in the campaign to date. That probably tells us somehting about the candidates, Coulter, the media, and ourselves. And it tells us she will be with us for a very long time.
It's true that people are not and should not be generally obligated to "disavow" stuff said by someone who happens to share the same political label as themselves. All liberals don't need to disavow everything Al Sharpton says, and all conservatives don't need to disavow everything Pat Robertson says. But when one makes an affirmative choice to associate with that person, then it's a different story. Coulter wasn't just appearing as a talking head on a television show; she was an invited speaker at a CPAC conference.People don't need to disavow her on behalf of the Right; they need to disavow her on behalf of themselves.
Good catch. All it means, though, is that NR is less clueless than the population at large, since Coulter's words in this particular case (unlike her usual over-the-top nastiness) was an unexception high-level summary of what we've in fact attempted to do:
* Invade their countries.
We've at least made a start.
* Kill their leaders.
Ditto
* And convert them to Christianity.
The jury is still out about this, and will be for a long time--including over the question of whether we're even attempting such a thing. Still, would anybody here make the claim that the Jihadist ascendency inside Islam needs to be replace by a moderate one if we aren't to suffer an immense and catastrophic Clash of Civilizations?
None of the above means that I don't think her typical schtick is both disgusting and harmful to the right side of the political spectrum. I'm with Christopher Cooke and NickM on the Coulter (and M.Moore) issue.
Several commenters have pointed out that Coulter is a bomb thrower. And that is what was going on here, she threw out a bomb, and everyone here was mortified.
A small minority here, but I like her. I tried her books, and really didn't like them. As when she was fired, her writing isn't that good. What she is good at is as a talking head. She knows it is a game and it is showmanship. So many try to make it into something that it isn't.
Finally, why is everyone so upset about the use of the word "fagggot"? She was like a kid using a bad word just to get a reaction out of her mother. And she got it. But realistically, BFD. Maybe those with IQs below the median should be outraged the next time that someone calls the President "stupid", since apparently that was aimed as an insult. In other words, if calling someone "stupid" is aimed at being an insult, then shouldn't the demographic involved be just as outraged as the gay community and its supporters about Ann's use of "faggot"?
The reason that the right thinks Ann funny here is not that they are homophobes, but know that the left will go berserk over her contravention of political correctness. Political correctness says that straights can't use that term, so she used it to get the expected rise out of the left. And it worked.
- Shooting Liebermans opponent
- Poisoning a Supreme Court Justice
- Using baseball bats to talk to Liberals
- Wishing Timothy McVeigh had bombed the NYTimes Bldg.
- Calling 9/11 widows millionaire broads who enjoy their husbands' deaths
all will be well in the party of law and order and the war on terror.
It is a choice to be offended as an example of the morality of dissociation. For a good discussion see "White Guilt" by Shelby Steele.
Ann does seem to enjoy herself at times like this, too bad because unlike most of the public conservatives she does understand the ugly side of liberalism.
Still while both sides take yet another opportunity to trumpet their virtue and class, although outraged liberals are the funniest, a few may pause in their orgiastic delight and consider why so much attention is showered on Coulter, by herself, almost singular.
I will humbly suggest that is due to the fact there are so many more targets on the Left and so few on the Right. No?
Then why always Coulter with an occasional bow to Pat Robertson and a few others. Note the Maher comment above &no 1001 posts. But apart from the numerical differences there remains the harsh truth that anything said on the left, and I emphasize anything, is either overlooked or tolerated. The skin seems to get a lot tougher when the flak is coming from the port side while the hypocrisy quotient increases considerably.
So Ann serves a purpose. She inadvertently gives liberals an opportunity to be outraged, in any case they'd create them, and yet another reason to block out the vileness that emanates from their own precincts. Not a bad deal.
The word scab strikes a personal cord with me because people who are very upset by any personal reference that might be considered unacceptable to the recipient still use it routinely. I follow its use. It is used not only in the sports section of the NYT but also routinely in the NYT crossword puzzle. In this country very frequently a replacement worker is a minority who is not allowed into a closed union and is simply trying to support his family.
This parallels my thoughts. I think the insult is equally heinous someone calls Presidents Ford, Reagan, Bush and Bush a moron as it is when the word faggot is tossed around.
Is this somehow not clear? Republicans nearly uniformly oppose gay marriage and most gay rights period. It's a pretty simply analysis: pandering to homosexuals will alienate 20-25% of the electorate, while (assuming all GLBTs vote based on GLBT issues) attempting to gain the support of 2-4%, who are predisposed to like Democrats anyway. So let's consider: lose 20% to pick up 2%? Sounds like a great idea.
Congratulations, someone finally has the accurate numbers.
Also, since you specifically compare Al Franken to Ann Coulter ... I listened to Al Franken often enough on Air America, including a few interviews of various conservatives, including Pat Buchanan. The interviews were cordial and respectful in tone, some good-natured kidding around. No yelling, no cutting anyone off. No insults. No venom. Just not much in common with Annie, IMO. Or Rush, or Michael S.
Al Franken is very funny and very intelligent. I spent this past New Year's Eve with him at a party. When I told him I was a Libertarian he spontaneously replied I guess that means we will never find out how that would govern.
But he said "Sean Hannity took residence up Newt Gingrich's butt from 94-98". He also prayed that Rush Limbaugh would have a maximum sentence in the most dangerous prision and have an "African-American cellmate"
I believe Al Franken and Ann Coulter are two sides of the same coin and consider the problem is you don't.
Great, so Al Franken is pro-prison rape. To me that is just as offensive and mean-spirited, if not more, as calling someone a faggot. Moreover, Franken is also a racist!
Oh wait, he is a comedian. That was supposed to be "funny". Whassamatter, can't I take a joke?
Exactly, my friend. But consider the fuss that would ensue if a Conservative said that they wanted Rosie McDonald to get raped by a bunch of black men. Oh christ, we would never hear the end of it. But Rush Limbaugh? Rape away! It's a knee-slapper! Can't you take a joke?
Man, there are so many people out there who are just blind to their own hypocrisy.
JerryW,
You have an awful lot of anecdotal evidence about things people have allegedly said that you've witnessed firsthand, but that conveniently failed to make it into any public record. As I pointed out in response to you in an earlier comment, such evidence obviously can't be refuted, but forgive us if we don't all take your word for it. Has Franken ever made any such comments either on the air or at a public event in which his words were recorded?
As Eugene has tirelessly pointed out in his criticism of Slate's "Bushim of the Day," offensive quotes are often much less offensive—and silly quotes less silly—when considered in context with the rest of what the speaker said. You quote Mitt Romney in your post, but you leave out the punch line. His full phrase was the following:
"I'm happy to learn also that, after you hear from me, your're going to hear from Ann Coulter. That is a good thing. Oh yea! I think it's always very important to get the views of moderates."
You can verify this by taking a look at the clip here.
The clip you link to, like your own quotation, cuts the prase off after the "Oh yea!" This is unfortunate. It's much more likely that Romney's joke was a jab at Coulter and not an endorsement of her. In any case, Volokh readers should at least be aware that it was meant as a joke. Please add the punch line!
Todd
But wait, JunkYardLawDog.... she didn't make an affirmative statement, did she? So there was no need to apologize to gays for comparing them to John Edwards, right?
JunkYardLawDog's first position- she didn't make the comparison.
JYLD's second position- she made the comparison (she admits it) but c'mon, it was funny! You know.... she said 'faggot'! That's funny!
JYLD's third position- who knows...; consistency is the hobgoblin of people who actually care enough to think through their positions, instead of weaselling their way through life.
That dog doesn't hunt
The only anecdotal evidence I quoted was what he actually said to me personally and it was funny and clever and certainly not negative. The other quotes I cheated on. I Googled "Al Franken Quotes". There was a listing of 10 pages of his quotes. I simply chose the 2 I quoted here because they were inflammatory. I stopped reading after those 2 because I got lazy. Why don't you do the same thing I did? You may find others even more inflammatory.
If I may an attempt to read your mind, these quotes of his may have disturbed you. You should then ask why hasn't the MSM played them up the way they did the Coulter quote? I think they just thought they were funny. Read my previous post: if I say it is is funny, if you say it you should be ex-communicated.
Al Franken addresses the DNC and says, "George Bush is a faggot."
wait.... JYLD might have a problem with that... he says,
"If it wasn't for the Patriot Act, I would say that George Bush was a faggot."
If you think this is acceptable in the public discourse (not that it isn't protected by the 1st, but that this is how you want your high-level political discourse to sound), then there really isn't much more to say. If you think it isn't, then ask why it is acceptable for Ann Coulter to say this.
There's a difference between blogs, and jokes between friends, and how our national discourse sounds. I don't want sanitized, airbrushed, safe debates between candidates either, but I don't see how calling other candidates 'faggots' (even if by implication) serves to advance any purpose. There is a distinction between mocking Edwards and using it to segue to a political attack ("I wish Edwards would spend as much time selecing his campaign staff as he does on his hair...") and what Ms. Coulter did.
Sorry, I misunderstood your previous comment, which I thought meant that Franken had made all of those statements to you personally. It appears that what Franken said was, and correct me if you have a different version of this than I found, as follows:
The "maximum security" bit is referring to Limbaugh's hypocrisy in calling for tougher laws on drug abusers while being one himself; I see nothing inappropriate about that. The African American cellmate comment was certainly over the line. Sure, I find it disturbing, and shame on Franken for saying it. I still think you'd be hard-pressed to make the case that Franken is as routinely and unapologetically uncivil to his opponents as Coulter is, and therein, I think, lies the point that Ilya and Orin seem to be getting at. To respond to the various posters who argue that Coulter has a positive effect because she adds "passion" to political discussion or serves as a lightning rod for criticism, it seems to me that the primary effect of the blowhards on both sides--and that includes Coulter and Franken as well as Moore, Hannity and Limbaugh-- is to keep political discourse at a superficial, ad hominem level, and to contribute to the echo chamber effect whereby partisans on both sides of the divide become increasingly convinced to a preposterous degree of certainty that their opinions are correct in all respects, and that everyone on the other side is a liar, a fool, or both. (That, I think, is exactly what the Ted Rall comic we discussed yesterday was getting at). Genuine discussion of the issues and underlying value judgments becomes impossible at that point, and instead we have what we see today-- argument by sound bite and both sides flinging ad hominem attacks in place of substantive discussion. Civility, and the assumption of good faith on the part of one's opponent, is not just a matter of etiquette, it's a necessary condition of a healthy deliberative democracy.
Having said all that, I still think Coulter is a particularly egregious example of the trend.
You still need to pickup a few books and try to discern the difference between a direct affirmation of derision and an at most implied derision.
These are not difficult concepts yet you seem incapable of discerning the difference between:
You are purple (a direct affirmation) and
I was going to say something about you but I didn't want to use the word purple.
In the second case it might be implied that the speaker is saying you are purple, but that is not the only possible construct by any means. The speaker might refering to discussing you are not purple or that your wife is purple or that your best friend is purple.
You provided an example and attempt at childish humor that was a direct affirmation of derision, and have been fighting ever since to overcome the fact that the example is NOT on point to what Coulter said because Coulter did not make a direct affirmation of derision about Edwards.
It seems your verbal abilities and ability to conceptualize stopped somewhere in public school around 7th or 8th grade. The same level as your childish attempt at an insult to me based upon a variation of the old your mother wears combat boots theme.
Laughs the "Dog"
wait.... JYLD might have a problem with that... he says,
"If it wasn't for the Patriot Act, I would say that George Bush was a faggot."
Just change one word--....George Bush is a moron".
That is being said all the time and yet apparently it doesn't disturb you. Why not? In my mind the two are equivalent (moron/faggot). Either both go or both can stay.
sashal, your post is frankly Orwellian. You are basically using the same tactics of which you are accuse Republicans.
A non-insignificant number of Democrats have long tried to paint all or most Republicans as unfeeling, fascist racist, and evil. Certainly, there are some Republicans for whom this might fit. Then again, there are some Democrats who unamerican, treasonous and evil. The problem comes when the mainstream members of a party give the kooks a free pass. Bill Clinton understood this (Sistah Souljah), and it appears that the leading Republican candidates understand it as well.
Are you suggesting that the intellectual capacity of the Leader of the Free World is irrelevant to his ability to perform the tasks of his office? Bush's intelligence, or lack thereof, seems fair game for criticism, because it is directly relevant to his ability to make decisions that affect us all. The issue of his sexuality, not nearly so much.
There is a difference between "nigga" and "nigger."
That is a ridiculous assertion. One is a mispronounciation of the other. The fact that the word can be used as a slur or as a term of endearment is irrelevant to its pronounciation in either context.
Also: even as blacks may call each other nigger and that's apparently okay, we have has Dan Savage, the gay columnist who wrote the advice column "Dear Faggot," and that was apprently okay. Same thing with "queer."
Regarding your point, if this was said at the *DNC*, yes, I would find it objectionable as it is not a substantive comment. I would prefer a statement that his policies have been moronic. You did not address my question- would you find my hypothetical Al Franken comment objectionable, and if so, why isn't Ann Coulter's?
JYLD- wow.... your posts speak eloquently for your ability to reason. I'll just leave it at that.
There is a long history in the world that within a community that is the subject of popular derision to co-opt the term of derision as a term of empowerment, and thus to negate the meaning *within the community*. Context plays a role. For a straight person to call a gay person a faggot, or a white person to call a black person a nigger, has a very different meaning than when the term is used within the community.
For an example of unobjectionable contextural differences:
A doctor says that you have an infection in your penis.
A 6th grader loudly shouts in class, "I love my penis!"
Same word, different context.
If Ann Coulter were a gay man, telling her gay hairdresser, that they were going out, and he needed to get his 'faggot self together' I doubt there would be much of an issue.
But that would be presupposing Ann Coulter is a transvestite. Which I would not do, as I might have to go to rehab.
As in the matter of NR, I think you are too credulous about the candidates' statements, especially Romney's.
First, Mark Kleiman points out, they seemed to wait to see which way the wind was blowing before saying anything.
Second, in the case of Romney, do you really believe he was unfamiliar with Coulter's history when he praised her?
Do you think Romney thought,
I'd say this is just Mitt saying what's convenient at the moment yet again.
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.
1) Her name is "Marcotte", not "Marcotten".
2) Edwards didn't fire them, they both resigned. One can of course look for "spending more time with my family" sorts of distinctions there, but apparently there were death threats involved, and McEwan claimed a creepy encounter with someone showing up at her house at night. Google the intertubes for articles by both of them on the experience (One was Salon, I forget where the other was).
Note that nothing in this message defends anything they have written.
In your mind, has the GOP waged a campaign against the legal rights of morons for the last two elecion cycles in order to appease and gain the votes of the religious right?
Nick
Second, in the case of Romney, do you really believe he was unfamiliar with Coulter's history when he praised her?
Do you think Romney thought,
"I'm shocked to hear Ann Coulter say something so offensive. I didn't realize she was like that. I must distance myself as a matter of principle."
I'd say this is just Mitt saying what's convenient at the moment yet again.
I don't disagree with any of these points. But if Romney, who is willing to say almost anything for political expediency, now thinks that the wind is blowing against Coulter on the right, that is a notable sign that it actually is.
Now, moving beyond the facts,
1) That apparently people don't even know her name would seem to put paid to the idea that there's some sort of equivalence between a candidate staffer and a headline speaker.
2) Neither Amanda nor Melissa are, in fact, anti-Catholic or anti-Christian. They don't treat religion piously, and they are fire breathers. I don't talk about religion as they do in public, but I do in private. This doesn't make me a anti-religion. I'm just not religious, and don't find it to be exempt from being made fun of.
3) They were made targets by specific operatives. The notion that they would be liabilities to Edwards is silly, given that the people targeting them would never vote for Edwards, anyway.
4) I don't support Edwards, and other than respecting them while disagreeing with them a lot, have no connection to Marcotte or McEwan. For the record, I'm of the libertarian-but-hating-on-the-Republicans-because-they-suck camp.
5) Republicans can have me back when transparent lies, Coulter, and real small government instincts come back in vogue.
5a) Coming from a long line of military service, a rider to the above is actually respecting troops, cf. our wounded, instead of just using the phrase as a club.
6) I'm aware that I'm officially way off topic now.
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.
Yes, the proximate cause of the firing was a confrontation between Coulter and the editors. However, as Goldberg explains in linked article, the confrontation arose in the first place because of the editors' unhappiness with the substance of her writing. He says that running Coulter's post 9/11 column which argued that the US should conquer and forcibly convert Muslim nations was a "mistake" by NR, and said that Coulter was guilty of "crappy writing and crappier behavior."
To be clear, I was using defamation in an attempt to show JYLD why implied comments are usually treated the same as his self-created category of affirmative comments. Unfortunately, using logic, or analogies, or English, with some posters is as rewarding as repeatedly smashing your head into a brick wall. It only feels good when you stop.
To address your question- the analysis woudn't get that far because Edwards is a public figure, and it is extremely difficult for a public figure to bring a defamation suit. Given the context of the proceedings, the subject of the insult (public figure), the person doing the insult (well known for false 'jokes'), and it's nature as a generic insult (although if it was a prepared comment, this could fall away, as it has been ruled that a spontaneous insult is different than a measured &written one).... anyway, no, this would be ludicrous. I was reasoning by analogy.
It appears Bill Donahue of the Catholic League decided Amanda Marcotte would no longer work on the Edwards campaign. He said he was going to do it, and then he did it.
A fair point, though I'd take out the words "almost" and "notable." I hope you are right, though I'm dubious.
I agree that it's impossible to discern what Romney meant from the truncated quote, but I don't think it's much easier with the full language. When I read his words, I didn't perceive at all that he was "poking fun" at Coulter's extremism. I read his statement as an attempt to define himself as very conservative, by (jokingly, to be sure) calling Coulter a moderate. I think your reading is fair, but that it's not the only fair reading.
Yes, he was making a joke about her not being "moderate." That doesn't mean he wasn't also praising her. The two are not mutually exclusive.
No. It's not. Not in the context it was said. If someone during the same fundraiser used the 'n' word and made a joke about Brak Obama, it'd be the same thing. It's not funny, it's not 'joking'. It just pretends to be. Badly.
It's evidence that the GOP base is horribly intolerant to GLBT people, and dosen't care about being public about it. Go try sidetracking someone else with comparisons to voices you don't like on the left. I'm not playing. The GOP is meanspiritedly bigoted against GLBT people. Deal with it.
I think the equivocation is blatantly obvious to everyone - Coulter was certainly calling Edwards a "faggot." Pointing out that obviousness to JYLD by insulting him using the same inane rhetorical dodge she did is actually insulting him, and it actually does run rampant over the comment policy. I don't think anyone takes the says the "Dog" guy seriously on this one (or much else, given that goofy signature), so there's not much point in belaboring the obvious.
In George Allen's case, some of it was shrugged off with a "rural Virginia what-did-you-expect" approach, but with a bunch of college-aged partisans, it's a little more difficult to excuse it as a generational gap.
Plus, if people generally get more conservative as they get older (so I understand), then where does that leave this crowd? Not a pretty picture, I think.
Todd
There is no Macaca wing of the Party. Allen's remark was universally denounced. Nobody shrugged it off.
A fair reading, but a very ungenerous one. I try to show a bit more charity when reading other's statements. Ann Coulter can selectively quote opponents and impute the worst of motives, but must we do the same?
...Except for all of the other people who are more seriously arguing the same point? Scroll up. (For the record I continue to think that "the dog" is a parody troll. The same type comes out at liberal blogs, too.)
There is no Macaca wing of the Party. Allen's remark was universally denounced. Nobody shrugged it off.
Really? That must be why Allen was no more serious than a write in candidate. Oh, wait. I suppose it is possible to denounce someone and vote for them anyway, but it seems a bit odd that so many people would do so. Or perhaps "denounced" means different things to different people?
And I think the Dog is an obvious troll, which is evident due to the fact that SOMEONE always gets their hackles up and responds to it.
That is a unique and quite inaccurate definition of a "troll".
The "Dog" is not a parody, though it may seem that way to liberals who find it difficult to conceive of thinking outside their own world view. The "Dog" just calls 'em like he/she sees 'em. That's all.
Says the "Dog"
A candidate who makes a dumb remark is not, and should not be, disqualified from running. If every candidate who ever made a dumb remark was disqualified from running, then there would be no candidates for any office, ever.
Moreover, those who voted for Allen were not endorsing the Macaca remark, and do not constitute the "Macaca Wing of the GOP".
I came late to the thread, and scanning up (I did before I posted, too) I don't see anyone making the same point--that is, that "I would say something about X, except I can't use word Y" is materially different from saying "X is a Y" because the speaker might have been meaning to say "X is not a Y." Has anyone else actually been making that argument? It seems uncommonly goofy. If I missed someone, though, sorry for slighting them.
My only point was that it's crass to throw invective at the commentor using that trick in order to show how transparent the trick is. We all know the trick is transparent, so it's no different than directly insulting him.
The two statements are not mutually exclusive.
A door is what "The Dog" is perpetually on the wrong side of.
1. She is not particularly smart
2. She is not particularly insightful
3. She is not particularly considerate
I believe these three qualities are important parts of any political commenter. You should be smart, so you understand what's happening now. You should be insightful, so you understand what's likely to happen in the future. And you should be considerate, so your intellect and insight will be appreciated by others.
I don't appreciate Ann Coulter's viewpoint, because it comes with name-calling and fart jokes. Don't get me wrong; I don't have a problem with name-calling and fart jokes, and have been known to engage in both from time to time. I just don't do it at work.
There's a level of professionalism that I expect from people who speak publicly. You can call someone a "major league asshole" when you don't know the microphone is on, and I don't have a problem with it. But you don't walk up to a PA system and announce "you're all a bunch of retards and faggots".
Incidentally, JunkYardLawDog, the word "troll" applied to an internet post is not about a monster you might encounter in a D&D game, but a variety of fishing. It has nothing to do with parody, and is all about trailing bait in the water hoping something will take it.
1. She is not particularly smart
2. She is not particularly insightful
3. She is not particularly considerate"
Caliban Darklock: this is exactly why I visit this site--to engage in reasoned debate with those on the other side of the political/ideological aisle. Reasonable people may disagree on some of the more pressing issues of the day. But what Coulter/Rush/Savage/Hannity spew are not real conservative ideas, and your brethren would be wise to denounce them as you have. These people are authoritarian sheep who feed on the ignorance of their core audiences. They have done so much to destroy the concept of reasoned debate, and they have so diluted the meaning of "conservatism" to the point where the term has been rendered meaningless.
It's a good litmus test for this site though. Now that I know who actually supports people like Coulter, I know who not to take seriously in the next comment thread.
The latter is, of course, not polite, respectful, or even illuminating discourse. But if Coulter had said "moron" instead of "faggot," there would be no uproar.
Here's a test: imagine Coulter making some similar joke about some candidate with the word "nigger," "kike", or "idol-worshipping Papist" substitued for "faggot" and imagine the same audience response.
There's a difference between a personal insult to one person, and gleefully using a derogatory slur against a group of people, especially when the audience seems to react positively to the use of the slur.
southernwood7 [wrote:]
What Coulter does is more on the level of mooning someone.
No. It's not. Not in the context it was said. If someone during the same fundraiser used the 'n' word and made a joke about Brak Obama, it'd be the same thing. It's not funny, it's not 'joking'. It just pretends to be. Badly.
It's evidence that the GOP base is horribly intolerant to GLBT people, and dosen't care about being public about it. Go try sidetracking someone else with comparisons to voices you don't like on the left. I'm not playing. The GOP is meanspiritedly bigoted against GLBT people. Deal with it.
=====================================
Sorry, Josh Jasper, I was only trying to distinguish Coulter's comments from the kind others here have equated them to such as "Bush is a liar". Limiting myself to that point may have been a mistake if it suggested to anyone that I thought Coulter's use of "faggot" was somehow innocuous for that.
FWIW, I think it is no accident that Coulter chose that particular slur. Aside from getting in a slap at a group that has been getting too uppity for her tastes, she was IMO using the part of the subtext of "faggot" that includes the threat of violence (which "faggot!" is sometimes a prelude to on the street), including the "I'm going to make a girl out of you!" kind. Coulter's own gender notwithstanding, I think this is a legitimate reading in the context of her other utterances, notably her "humorous" threats of violence against liberals - including the ever hilarious beating-with-baseball-bats - plus her track record of calling other prominent Democrats "faggots". Anyway, that's how I read her.
All that said, I would encourage you to take a few deep breaths before responding when you see something that could be an honest oversight or mistake. Your accusation that I was deliberately sidetracking conversation by comparison to "voices [I] don't like on the left", and telling me to just "deal with it" would have been uncalled for even if my previous posts hadn't rather clearly established that I actually prefer the voices on the left and have no interest in being a GOP apologist. It also demonstrates that you were so busy being offended at the piece you focused on that you didn't get around to a broader reading for the point I was trying to make.
I'm here because I can converse civilly as a liberal with (predominantly) conservatives. Rather odd to get jumped on as a GOP apologist.
Just look at Coulter's response to all the serious comment by very serious people. She answers that she would never insult gays by comparing them to Edwards. That, she says, would be mean.
It was mostly a joke about the concept of going to rehab for uing "bad words" -- which is a pretty bizzare concept.
One should also note that logically the statement does not refer to JE as a faggot but merely associates him in an unspecified way with the term.
All slang terms for "male persons expressing same-sex desires" are also slang terms for effeminate men and during the '04 campaign various conservative commentators referred to JE as "My Silky Pony" and the Breck Girl because of his appearance and demeanor. Thus his actual sexual preference is not an issue.
Likewise, Mark Steyn's reference to John Forbes Kerry as a nuancy boy is a good example of political punning.
It is perfectly appropriate for a commentator to suggest that someone running for President lacks the manly virtues that she feels are important in the holder of the office. Other commentators may prefer a more feminized President and they are free to promote same. But one is not required (even in the modern era) to favor a pansified candidate.
Again, I'll ask you to change the line to use the word "nigger" or "kike" instead of "faggot" (and make it about a black or Jewish candidate) and see if you'll still tell it to your daughter and if she'll think it funny.
When you first posted, you may not have been aware that Romney's entire reference to Coulter was in the context of making a joke; however, commenters have since pointed that out to you. Yet you have not updated your post to provide the full quote or correct your error. Most of the bloggers on Volokh Conspiracy have justifiably earned a reputation for fairness and integrity, and your inaction falls below the expected standard. You are of course free to hold any opinion of Romney that you wish, but your posts should be accurate and fair. Your post's references to Romney are misleading, and your failure to correct the post now results in the appearance that you are intentionally attempting to mislead your readers. We expect better from you, regardless of whether you dislike Romney and want to denigrate him. Be accurate, be fair, correct where you should.
Thanks for the definition of "Troll". However, I don't remember asking for one. Though I believe Oriel did need one.
I've only been using this new fangled computer stuff online since 1987 so I haven't had time to learn all these new fangled internet terms. Golly Gee, thanks.
Says the "Dog"
Oh really?
Someone is this or the subsequent thread referenced Sarah Silverman. This is the type of joke she could get away with at a Comedy Central Roast. It was totally inappropriate to the context. I do think to the extent the joke was about "rehab for bigoted utterances," the joke worked.
I note that I have never seen JYLD and Ann Coulter standing next to each other. Sort of like nobody ever saw Bruce Wayne and Batman standing next to each other.
I'm just saying.
You're welcome to try and beat it out of me any time you like. However, if I were you, I'd think twice about trying.
I'm just saying.
Says the "Dog"
P.S. The more my signature line bothers persons like yourself the more determined I become to use it. Any adult with half a brain would just stop reading before being affronted with the sig line that dare not speak its name. Well gotta go take a dip in the pond out back. See ya.
"Now, moving beyond the facts,..."
Exactly. The women you defend are not antichristian in the same way that Anne Coulter is not antigay. Your defense of them is characteristic, just as the rest of the obscenities directed at the right -- from their writing to the hosts on The View calling the Administration "liars and murderers" on national television to applause and cheers. Now I know that calling someone a "faggot" is much worse in some quarters than calling someone a "murderer," but frankly I find the latter more offensive.
The fact is that such labels are a staple in the discourse on the left. The thing about Ann Coulter's excess is that it is exceptional, and thus noteworthy. The left is so immersed in such hate speech that it doesn't even notice it -- and uses that blindness to deny its existence.
It is merely amusing that the left gasps in horror when any discourse on the right comes within a mile of it. It is self-serving hypocritical manufactured outrage for the sake of outrage. And it is not necessary to condone any such expression to notice this. It is contrivance, pure and simple.
If you and your daughter are highly intelligent people, then you should recognize offensive terms when you see them and then object to them. That's what good, smart people do.
That you apparently show your own ignorant and bigoted qualities by saying others might prefer 'feminized' men shows.
What's a man's man to you? What constitutes a 'femininized' man? Those who, you know, care?
Would your daughter find it offensive if I called her a bitch and a 'ho?
Funny that so-called 'smart' people can be so dumb.
Otoh, those on the right and center-right willing to consider shunning Coulter should by no means imagine anyone on the Left would, thereafter, be more willing to lead by example rather than by diktat, an over-eager contempt, etc., etc. In fact, to the contrary, it is highly probable the Left's appetite for even more moralistic bravado and presumption would be whetted all the more. So a type of strictly internal discipline, not any type of submission to the Left's presumptive authority, is what would be warranted.
Obviously my troll diagnosis was waaaaay off base.
You left out half of the appropriate quote. That being:
Says the "Dog"
Nick
There's some notable truth there, though you've never written that "lengthy post," even though it would be easy to do so. (E.g., Michael Moore, F-911, together with Moore's ridiculously caustic and mendacious commentaries, were openly feted by political insiders and power brokers. Too, he sat next to an ex-president at the 2000 DNC and he wasn't given a more marginal treatment until it was demonstrated he was, from a practical/political perspective, counter-productive in terms of winning over critical marginal voters. Though Moore is but one example, variously and predictably dismissed in this thread.)
Trenchant commentary, when the mirror is held up to the Left and the lights are switched-on too brightly, is held in contempt, is elided, occluded, censored, redacted, denied, etc. - it is dismissed and, with august pretensions (always with august protests and pretensions), the indignant harrumphs, the self-vauntings, the moralistic bravado, all take center stage. It's at this point - when all these harrumphs and self-admirations are given center stage - that the lights, the kleig lights, are switched-on as brightly as is conceivably possible. By contrast, and a stark contrast it is, the mephitic (that "stench") emanating from the Left is given a token acknowledgement only.
Lead by example.
That would be a welcome change.
Coulter, in this instance and even though she is an extraordinarily sharp witted and razor's edge satirist, and is often hilarious in that vein, went beyond a certain boundary in this instance. The f-word in question is a type of incitement in addition to representing a too caustic remark and affront, not so dissimilar from the n-word. It also risks being misinterpreted as a type of wink (e.g., by more dubious, if marginal, elements), especially so given the nuanced treatment she was attempting to convey. She should be rebuked or even shunned for a brief period of time. (Though again, with no expectation that the Left would learn a thing by such an action, even to the contrary.)
Then again, certainly so by Orin (I can dish it out but can't take it) Kerr's "decorous" standards, this comment is "offensive," thus needs to be censored.
On Monday's edition of Fox News Channel's Hannity and Colmes, conservative pundit Ann Coulter defended her use of the term "faggot" while referring to Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards at an annual conservative meeting last Friday, by claiming that it was more of a "schoolyard taunt," and that she wasn't trying to imply that he was gay.
Rest of this article at:
Coulter - Rawstory link
Prof. Volokh, It may be the case that the full quote is not a slam dunk unambiguous condemnation of Coulter. As you suggest, calling someone a non-moderate at C-PAC is not necessarily an insult. His statement was, however, clearly distancing himself from her views. It is also extremely unclear that it was a compliment. I was at C-PAC and I certainly did not get the impression it was a compliment.
Perhaps you feel that it is more likely that I do that it was meant as a compliment. Perhaps Ms. Lopez likewise misunderstood and Romney has flip-flopped on the issue. It may be that you are right.
Misquoting Romney by ommitting a key element of his statement, combined with stating that "The fact that the previous speaker - prominent Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney - praised her," and then "In his speech, he had praised her" is not justified by the possibility that the false impression may give rise to the correct binary verdict, any more than the misleading Bushisms are justified by the correct judgment on Bush's intelligence/ character.
As a scholar, yourself, on rational ignorance and the importance of trust in one's experts, it seems a particular shame that you would engage in one of the partisan tricks most damaging to that trust. Your scholarship likewise talks of doubt and uncertainty, which one would have thought would inspire a caution that would avoid the deeply disrespectful belief that opposing views do not deserve to be accurately described. More broadly, one of the VC's pet issues has been condemnation of other's engaging in just this form of deceipt. In general, one of the great pleasures, for me, of reading the Conspiracy is that it is so meticulously disclaimed, particularly in your brother's posts. Please, prof. Volokh, add an update, include the full quote, along with any spin that you feel will show that even the actual words used support the message that you feel was given, in an update.
As someone who has often used this site as an example of how valuable blogs can be as sources of expert and reliable information, I apologise if my wounded vicarious pride in this blog's integrity has caused me to use inclement language. I have been a frequent admirer of other posts of yours and hope that you maintain your generally superb standards.