March 3, 2007

I hate to do this. But I'm going to write a post defending myself against the idiotic charge...

... that I'm failing to denounce Ann Coulter for using the word "faggot" with reference to John Edwards. I have never promoted Ann Coulter on this blog. I just checked all the old references to her. In over 8,000 posts in 3 years, I see her name in only 10 posts, and half of these just have her name in some block quote from someone else. I've never approved of the kind of shots she takes, though I have said I think she imagines herself to be some sort of comedian:
You know, when we first noticed Coulter doing various political shows -- I think it was back in the mid-90s -- we were always saying "Why is that woman laughing?," "She's always laughing," "There's that woman again who's always laughing," etc. No matter what she said, she'd be laughing, as though every damned thing that happened in politics was hilarious to her and everything comment she made completely cracked her up. You might not think what she is saying is funny, but I think she's motivated by comic energy, and the people who like her are picking up on the fun.
And I've responded to a comparison of me to her:
One of the things that I observe, by the way, is how this attitude I take -- whatever it is -- drives the left blogosphere up the wall. I wonder why it takes so little? And why this special obsession with me? Some blogger wrote about me -- I linked to him yesterday... he's not getting another -- "She makes Ann Coulter look like Cicero." Ann Coulter makes outrageous statements intended to taunt people into attacking her. That's her game. I make some throwaway, half-humorous remark in the middle of a comments thread and touch off multi-blog fireworks that go on for days. What's that all about?
I briefly note an instance where she was prevented from speaking -- which reflects my longstanding interest in free speech. And I quote her joke about the nomination of Harriet Miers: "I eagerly await the announcement of President Bush's real nominee to the Supreme Court." Which is a good joke that expressed how I felt about the nomination. And here, also a propos of Miers, I mention that she laughed at a joke on "Real Time With Bill Maher."

So if you think I have some obligation to disassociate myself from her, you are just damned wrong on the facts. And if you think I have ever supported homophobia on this blog, I challenge you to prove it. You can't. And if you think I hate John Edwards, why don't you see if you can figure out who I voted for in the 2004 primary?

Meanwhile, what chumps you people are to take the bait and promote her again! Or is there some other story that would be big today if this nonsense weren't eclipsing it?

ADDED: There's the eclipse.

146 comments:

Simon said...

I tried to write a post that adequately expressed how singularly uninteresting is yet another stupid comment or bad taste joke from a woman who's career has been build on stupid comments and bad-taste jokes, but it all seems just too persistently dog-bites-man. She's a pain in the neck (even if she does occaisionally get it right, e.g. the Miers nomination) and I don't think she helps the Republican cause with the kind of people we need to win. We could have a round of CPD, I suppose, but ultimately, she says what she says and is best ignored. She doesn't represent the part of the Republican Party I call home.

Jennifer said...

I, for one, think it's perfectly reasonable to expect you to maintain a running tally of every public statement or action that you disagree with. Perhaps also a parallel tally of those public statements and actions you agree with. Now, the statements you feel pretty meh about, can probably go unnamed. But, that's it. Reasonable, no...?

Zeb Quinn said...

I've long been of the opinion that Ann Coulter is having the time of her life ticking everyone left of center off at her, as she does in her own inimitable way, and laughing all the way to the bank while she does it, selling books by the pallet load. Those who get so incensed by her seem unable to grasp the simple principle that, because it's their vitriolic reaction that fuels her fame, if they really and truly want for Coulter to go away and be heard no more, then they should be ignoring her. But I don't think they're capable of that kind of restraint on their knee-jerk reactions, nor the insight to understand why.

Bruce Hayden said...

I think that Coulter (can't use Ann here, can we?) was quite inventive about how she used her JD degree. She apparently makes a lot more money being a gadfly and talking head than I suspect she ever did as an attorney. But she does this by being reasonably attractive and over the top. That is what gets her noticed, and thus what sells.

My guess at why Coulter always seems to be laughing is that this sound bite/ talking head dueling is a big game, at least to her. No one is really winning debating points, but rather to get sound bites in. And, interestingly to me, she actually gets in a lot more facts than her liberal opponents do - you most often find them talking across each other, with both talking at once. But in the end, it is all a show, and taking it more seriously than that is not realistic. The difference is that she doesn't pretend that it is anything that it isn't. Most do.

somefeller said...

"She doesn't represent the part of the Republican Party I call home."

Well, that's all well and good, but the part of the Republican Party she calls home looks a lot bigger than your part. She was a featured speaker at CPAC, and she got lots of cheers for her comments. I'm sure we'll get plenty of conservatives posting here and elsewhere saying she's not part of the conservative movement they know and love (though we probably won't get the "I'm a conservative and I've never heard of her" schtick, she's too famous for that lame defense), but the fact is, she is very much a part of the Republican Party you call home. I'll believe that conservatives have rejected her when they stop inviting her to speak at their conferences and events (she's a popular draw for GOP events), stop buying her books, and stop booking her on their shows (see, e.g.: Sean Hannity). I doubt that will happen anytime soon.

StephenB said...

I read a couple of Coulter's books as a twenty-year-old looking for a political "home." I even read her weekly column every now and then. But about a year or so ago, I realized that I was disgusted with the things she was saying. I stopped reading her at that point. I'm not a hard-core political being. I'm somewhat interested in politics, but it doesn't drive my daily life. And I certainly don't get as vehement about it as Coulter does. But I think people are right that she doesn't want to be taken seriously. If she did, she'd title her books differently, she wouldn't wear leather on their covers, and she would clean up her language.

So everybody just stop worrying about Ann--the trash-talking one, not our articulate host. She's not meant to be taken seriously. And if you're worried about her association with CPAC and other conservative organizations, then maybe you should be worrying about conservatism.

Beth said...

A couple of days ago another commenter stated, without any apparent sense of irony, that liberals argue from emotion while conservatives argue from facts. I remembered thinking of Coulter at the time and chuckling at what the complete self-delusion the remark indicated--a perfect example, in fact, of its own error. It's even funnier coming right after the Edwards/Marcotte fiasco, since Coulter's foul mouth and bile are spewed on television screens, as a desired guest on talking head shows. Conservatives avowing that she doesn't represent the GOP or conservatives in general are fooling themselves. She's yours, whether you want her or not.

Wade_Garrett said...

If I had a gay son or a gay sibling, I would be outraged.

Having said that, I take the same attitude towards her that I take to the KKK, or to those obnoxious preachers who stand on library mall and accuse everybody who passes them of living sinful lifestyles. Ignoring them will make them go away a lot faster than insulting them.

Ann Coulter's wing of the Republican party is enormous -- I am amazed at the extent to which they are motivated more by what they are against (sex and liberals) than what they are for. In fact, I would say that it is a majority of the party. And they're driving life-long Republicans like my grandfater into the arms of moderate Democrats.

hdhouse said...

I joined the Annthrax Annie blog a few years ago. I figured her and it to be a target rich environment.

I am proud to say (PROUD I SAY!!) that I was asked to remove myself from her blog because I was too disruptive to her message. So of course I took the bait and asked
"what message?"...and on it went.

Finally, they posted my IP address and my theretofore signup email.

And if you think AnnthraxAnnie Coulter is bad news poorly expressed, wait until you read what some of her followers think constitutes debate decorum. OHMYGOD.

Ann Althouse is as far away from AnthraxAnnie as night is to day (tonight's eclipse notwithstanding). While I sometimes disagree with Ms. Althouse, she is civil, learned, makes an effort, and without guile.

The charge is idiotic and meanspirited and should be dismissed on face.

Simon said...

Bruce Hayden said...
"[Coulter is] reasonably attractive..."

Bruce, as an attorney, I think you should be more careful of how you use the "R" word. ;) Concededly these things are a matter of taste (and concededly I suppose mine might not be mainstream), but I don't see how Coulter could be seen as remotely, let alone reasonably attractive.

Somefeller - I'm not going to be held responsible for every dumbass thing any Republican does, any more than I'm going to try to take credit for the neat stuff that many of them do. One doesn't exchange one's brain for one's GOP membership membership card.

Stephen - but that experience is precisley what worries me. I worry that a lot of people who're trying to work out what their views are read this famed pundit and are totally turned off. It's one thing to read Hayek, Kirk or Goldwater and say "well, f*ck that" -- that's apparently how young folks speek, if you read liberal blogs, lots of colorful metaphors -- "I'm not going to be associated with that shower." It's quite another for them to be turned off by something that I don't rally think represents my view of the world. It's similar to when Ann came back in something approaching shock from the Chicago conference (recall that we didn't immediately know that this had been a libertarian thing not a conservative thing) - okay, if you went and discovered that this view of the world just isn't one you can buy, fair enough, but what've you been told? Does it actually reflect a conservative worldview, or is it just this one little disgusting corner that's created a pars pro toto mistake?

Bruce Hayden said...

So everybody just stop worrying about Ann--the trash-talking one, not our articulate host. She's not meant to be taken seriously.

That is the important thing here. Coulter doesn't take herself seriously, nor does almost anyone on the right, so why does the left? Responding like this to her just feeds her.

Patrick said...

For heaven's sake. Ann Coulter = Michael Moore. Neither represents the mainstream of her/his associated political party (though each has a following), but the parties cravenly embrace and even promote them. Both parties deserve scorn for their cravenness (this is news?). But it's just nonsense to hold every Democrat responsible for Moore simply because of common party affiliation. Same for Coulter. Of course, you can find examples of people on the right who nonsensically purport to hold every Democrat accountable for Michael Moore. And some of their counterparts have joined us here today.

George said...

Newsweek: March 5, 2007

Cover photo: Pathetic-looking double amputee.
Table of Contents: Photo of another amputee.
Dolphins to be used by US Navy as undersea killers.
Huge photo of an amputee.
Photo of a man with one eye and an empty eye-socket staring at camera.
Photo of an amputee grimacing in agony.
Photo of a pretty girl with a giant tattoo.
Photo of terribly burned woman.
Full-page story about Twinkies.
Six-page story about “The Secret” featuring a photo of Oprah whose name is also on the cover.
Three page ad, er, story about the tomb of Jesus.
Full-page ad with photo of bed-ridden woman about to vomit.
Full-page review of movie about a serial killer. (Says the reviewer, “We see the [murders] in all their horror.”)
Photo of a toilet.
Headline with the word “Booger” in it.
Anna Nicole Smith.

Althouse February 24-@March 3, 2007

Sexist comedian.
Cross-dressing proto-fascist composer.
Slur-happy polemicist.
Outraged Hmongs.
“N-word” furor at Duke.
The word “scrotum-y”.
Bad hair days.
Potty-mouthed bloggers.
Analyses of “Sex and the City”.
Avian wattle.
Kim Stanley in bed.
Various references to idiots and fascists.
Washington Irving: Gay?
Child pornography.
50+ years of celibacy.
A dress with angel-handed bosom support.
Slur-happy political blogger, Marcotte.
Oscar dresses.
"The immortal values of the spirit are above physical life. What sense does life have without these values? What then is it to live?

Wade_Garrett said...

There's a difference between Moore and Coulter. I'd say that Moore is more like Drudge -- a lot of what he publishes is gossip, though some of it is true. Coulter is just a name-caller. I don't much like either of them, but there's a difference.

And Ann Coulter isn't pretty. First of all, she's emaciated. Secondly, she's got a horrible complexion -- it looks like her face is made out of elbow and testicle skin.

Doyle said...

I don't think you have a responsibility to "disassociate" yourself from her. But to ignore the story entirely seems disingenuous, given that includes elements that you regularly write about, such as homophobia, John Edwards, Mitt Romney, and the radical right.

Romney, in particular, is made to look (even more) like a pandering douchebag by promoting Coulter and accepting her endorsement. But you like Mitt Romney, so to whatever extent you disapprove of Coulter you don't want to make a big deal over it... is my theory anyway.

Headline Junky said...

If anything the Democrats should be thanking Coulter for all the money they just saved trying to impress on people the very real differences between them and the GOP. Coulter's remark got a "Did she just say what I think she said?" gasp, followed by a hearty round of applause. Forget about getting the GOP candidates to denounce the remarks, or an apology. Forget about the outrage. Play the clip. Voiceover: "This is the GOP." Nuff said.

Beth said...

Headline junky, you're right. I hope someone's keeping that clip for next year. And I should probably start recommending her books to young people. The problem with the "oh, no one takes her seriously" theory is that it's bunk. I know people who take her completely at face value and think she's a great voice for conservatism. The mother of a close friend displays an autographed picture (!) of her in the living room.

Beth said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
somefeller said...

Simon: It's not a question of disassociating oneself with dumbass comments by members of your own political party. The issue is that when conservatives claim that Ann Coulter doesn't speak for conservatives generally, they are full of it. Coulter gets invited to speak at CPAC and at GOP events for a reason, and the reason is that she is very much in the mainstream of what passes for conservatism in this country. You can cite Hayek, Kirk, et al as being what conservatism is all about until you are blue in the face, but the fact is that they are marginal figures compared to the Coulters of the world. I'll bet she is invited to speak at CPAC next year, and the year after that, and that her bookings at GOP events won't suffer for this latest comment.

Actually, I'm rather glad Coulter said what she said. Most social conservatives know better than to say faggot and other similar hate slurs, even though that's what they are thinking. Her candor is refreshing. Plus, it gave John Edwards an excuse to send out a fundraising notice, and it guaranteed that the top story coming out of the CPAC convention isn't Rudy Giuliani's speech.

Beth said...

I just want to add, per the topic of this thread, of course Althouse has no need to address or distance herself from AC. I am glad to see some actual, unambiguously political and conservatively political bloggers finally doing so. I hope they have some influence on the attendees who clapped after her faggot remark. But until compelling evidence comes forth otherwise, AC speaks to, and for, the GOP as far as I can see. And they like her--that's why they clap.

Doyle said...

Along the lines of what Beth said, conservatives who are embarassed by Coulter don't just get to call her a comedian and be done with it.

I'm sorry, but it's grotesque that a major presidential contender associates himself with her. Conservatives aren't fans of her over-the-top comedy stylings. They like how much she hates liberals. There's a part of the wingnut brain that emits massive amounts of serotonin when she advocates killing them, either before or after killing all the ragheads.

johnstodder said...

I think it's as silly as the fact that Ann Coulter's a blonde, you're a blonde, she's a right-wing Republican, you're perceived incorrectly by some as a right-wing Republican.

If you're no longer a blonde (based on the post of the other day), that probably ends the problem. But you might have to watch out for any un-PC things Lucille Ball might've said.

Bob said...

Or is there some other story that would be big today if this nonsense weren't eclipsing it?

Well, there literally is an eclipse tonight, the moon will rise in an eclipsed state, and come uncovered as the evening progresses. Be sure to go out and take a look at it!

boston70 said...

Coulter reminds me of a drag queen performing in Ptown. Her over the top makeup, dress etc. would be a perfect addition to many of the drag queens in Provincetown. It is obviously an act.

Coulter is invited to all of these republican events and the crowd idolizes her. I can't recall a democrat event Michael Moore spoke at.

The sad thing is I doubt she is really homophobic. She is best friends with Drudge-a known homosexual, lives in South Beach and is known to be somewhat of a fag hag.

What I find fascinating is the christian right embracing her. She is in her 40's, single, no children, dated a Penthouse publisher, wears slutty clothes for 8:00 morning television shows and is absolutely adored by christians. She is invited to many of their events as well as many republican sanctioned events where they love her.

Remember when John Kerry appeared at that event where Whoppie Goldberg said some nasty things about Bush? The right wing went ballistic. And Whoopie Goldberg is a comedian. Now you have Ann Coulter appearing at republican function with many of the republican presidential candidates and the sound you hear from all of the participants is cheers.

Like Sullivan sad this CPAC event is really not about ideas but about what they hate: gays, illegal immigrants, Massachusetts, liberals, John McCain, San Francisco, Nancy Pelosi, Hilary Clinton, etc. Sounds like a ball.

And no there is no relation whatsover between Coulter and Althouse. For anyone to even consider that is out of their mind.
Ann, you shouldn't even have to defend yourself regarding any similarities.

MikeinSC said...

Simon: It's not a question of disassociating oneself with dumbass comments by members of your own political party. The issue is that when conservatives claim that Ann Coulter doesn't speak for conservatives generally, they are full of it. Coulter gets invited to speak at CPAC and at GOP events for a reason, and the reason is that she is very much in the mainstream of what passes for conservatism in this country. You can cite Hayek, Kirk, et al as being what conservatism is all about until you are blue in the face, but the fact is that they are marginal figures compared to the Coulters of the world. I'll bet she is invited to speak at CPAC next year, and the year after that, and that her bookings at GOP events won't suffer for this latest comment.

So, am I allowed to argue that the Dems universally agree with people like Amanda Marcotte, whomever runs firedoglake, and the denizens of Daily Kos since they write for the sites, hire the bloggers, and speak at their conventions?
-=Mike

AJD said...

"I hate to do this, but"

The Annie Althouse story

Doyle said...

For heaven's sake. Ann Coulter = Michael Moore.

Bzzzzz! Sorry, no way. If you want to attack Michael Moore, you're going to have to actually produce some statements that are even in the same realm as Coulter's. You may not like that Moore wants to have the president impeached, and call that an extreme position, but there's a difference beween calling for the ouster of the president and calling for mass killings, assassinations (of moderate Republicans), calling people "faggots" "ragheads" and "traitors," and what have you.

Anyway go ahead and bash Moore if you want, but it's just lazy and wrong to equate him with Coulter.

Doyle said...

So, am I allowed to argue that the Dems universally agree with people like Amanda Marcotte, whomever runs firedoglake, and the denizens of Daily Kos since they write for the sites, hire the bloggers, and speak at their conventions?

That's easy: no. "Godless," "Treason" and "Slander" were all NYT Bestsellers. She is a regular guest on network and cable television, and her columns are widely syndicated. She is a national figure in a way that no one on Daily Kos, or firedoglake is. Besides, there might only be a handful of commenters on those sites who call for their opponents to be deported or hanged for treason.

She is the rotten core of the conservative "movement," and she has no national counterpart on the left.

JohnnyColonic said...

I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I...

The foundation is laid. Throw in a few 'faggots' and you'll be a star.

somefeller said...

MikeinSC says: "So, am I allowed to argue that the Dems universally agree with people like Amanda Marcotte, whomever runs firedoglake, and the denizens of Daily Kos since they write for the sites, hire the bloggers, and speak at their conventions?"

Well, you're allowed to argue anything you want, it's a free country. But if you want to make a good argument, you'd need to show that Amanda Marcotte, Jane Hamsher (she runs Firedoglake) and the denizens of Daily Kos [a pretty big sample, since thousands of people are registered members there] (i) say things as inflammatory as Ann Coulter on a regular basis, (ii) sell thousands if not millions of books to liberals, (iii) are featured speakers at major liberal conventions and Democratic campaign events, (iv) are regularly invited on TV or radio talk shows by leading conservative talk show hosts as honored guests, and [note -- this is an and, not an or, gotta have all five points covered here] (v) are generally considered to be upper-level political pundits. You won't be able to hit all those points for the people you mentioned, so you won't be able to make a good argument on that score. Thanks for playing, Mike. Be sure to leave your contact information with the receptionist on your way out.

LarryK said...

Boston70

The entire Democratic leadership of Congress went to Farenheit 911 (explicitly designed to prevent George Bush's re-election) on its opening night. Michael Moore was then a guest of honor at the 2004 Democratic Convention, prominently seated next to ex-President Jimmy Carter. Any guesses about whether Ann C will be visible, or even present, for the GOP convention in 2008? There's simply no comparison - the Democratic party, as a party, went deep into the weeds with Moore in 2004, whereas Ann Coulter is a gadfly who gets speaking gigs because of her outrageous style but has zero support within the party establishment (including Romney, who simply introduced her because she was the next speaker, but is not otherwise linked to her at all). And while I'm not a fan of her shtick, it's far more fact-based than Michael Moore - few works have been more thoroughly exposed as a tissue of lies than Bowling for Columbine.

But since this post is about gay bashing, what's the deal with your smear against Matt Drudge? A "known homosexual" and a "fag hag"? Unless you know this from personal experience, these sound like the sound bites Ann Coulter left on the cutting room floor because they were too inflammatory and, frankly, idiotic.

And finally, if you really want to see what was discussed at CPAC, it's easy enough to get transcripts of the speeches by the "name" presenters like Rudy, Mitt and McCain. I think you'll find they're a lot more interested in and proficient with ideas than yourself.

StephenB said...

Simon- Don't worry about me. She didn't turn me off to conservatism. She just turned me off to her. Do people really look to Ann Coulter as the embodiment of conservatism? I certainly hope not. There are plenty of good conservative "role models," if you will, who don't make a living engaging in Coulter's cheap brand of comedy. Dinesh D'Souza, for example. At the same time that I was reading Coulter, I also picked up a copy of D'Souza's Letters to a Young Conservative. Needless to say, it was more informative and less smutty.

Doyle said...

Larry -

I invite you to point us in the direction of the worst or least true thing Michael Moore has ever said, as reported by a reliable source (say a newspaper).

It may be bad. I don't know. But I haven't actually heard of or read any serious falsehood he's accused of promoting, or personal attack on the level of Coulter's 9/11 widows or calling John Edwards a faggot.

MikeinSC said...

That's easy: no. "Godless," "Treason" and "Slander" were all NYT Bestsellers. She is a regular guest on network and cable television, and her columns are widely syndicated. She is a national figure in a way that no one on Daily Kos, or firedoglake is. Besides, there might only be a handful of commenters on those sites who call for their opponents to be deported or hanged for treason.

How many politicians speak to her?

You can go to Kos and see plenty of current Democratic Congresspeople writing for them. Edwards hired Marcotte. Hamsher worked for Lamont.

Who, exactly, has Coulter worked for? National Review fired her, for God's sake. No Republican candidate hires her or asks her to make campaign appearances for them.

A PAC hired her. PAC's are not the GOP.

She is the rotten core of the conservative "movement," and she has no national counterpart on the left.

That you seem to really believe that is the real tragic part here. Coulter is so notable because she's the exception.

But if you want to make a good argument, you'd need to show that Amanda Marcotte, Jane Hamsher (she runs Firedoglake) and the denizens of Daily Kos [a pretty big sample, since thousands of people are registered members there] (i) say things as inflammatory as Ann Coulter on a regular basis

You know they do.

sell thousands if not millions of books to liberals, (iii) are featured speakers at major liberal conventions and Democratic campaign events

II they do not do.

III they most assuredly do. Kos HOSTED a major convention that several Dem Presidential candidates went to address.

(iv) are regularly invited on TV or radio talk shows by leading conservative talk show hosts as honored guests, and [note -- this is an and, not an or, gotta have all five points covered here]

You've already failed with Coulter, as the GOP did not hire her to speak anywhere. CPAC did. No Presidential candidate specifically requested her nor do any rush to speak at any convention she may choose to set up.

(v) are generally considered to be upper-level political pundits.

Who views Coulter as an upper-level pundit? She can be funny when she wants, but who in the world takes much of what she writes seriously?

You won't be able to hit all those points for the people you mentioned, so you won't be able to make a good argument on that score. Thanks for playing, Mike. Be sure to leave your contact information with the receptionist on your way out.

You failed with Coulter as well, mind you. You got 2 of them completely wrong.

But, as expected, the left defends their own, no matter how offensive. Nothing is too offensive, apparently, if the politics are correct.
-=Mike

Doyle said...

Nothing is too offensive, apparently, if the politics are correct.

A mindblowing conclusion to a defense of Ann Coulter.

MikeinSC said...

Feel free to point to my "defense" of Coulter.
-=Mike

Doyle said...

A question for those who believe that Coulter is not taken seriously by Republicans: If that's the case, then why doesn't Romney take this golden opportunity to pull a Sister Souljah?

Think about it: the comment was so bad that even the CPAC audience hesitated before applauding. By denouncing it, Romney could be seen as an agent of tolerance without compromising his (reclaimed) conservative principles, unless considering John Edwards a faggot is now an article of conservative faith.

Plus, he becomes the magnanimous defender of poor John Edwards. By extending an olive branch in Edwards' direction, he makes nice with the consensus #3 Dem candidate so if/when he has to bash Hillary or Obama in the general it will seem more authentic.

The only fatal flaw in the plan would be if he just can't spurn Ann Coulter because too many Republican primary voters will hate him for it. Since he hasn't done it yet, I can only assume that's a big reason.

somefeller said...

Psst, Mike, Ann has been hired to speak at GOP fundraisers and events. A simple Google search will show that she's spoken on the rubber-chicken circuit for people like the Kent County, Michigan Republican Party’s annual Lincoln Day lunch, the Denton County, Texas Republican Party's annual Lincoln-Reagan Dinner, various college Republican events, and similar gatherings. And that's just what I got off of a two-minute internet look-see. I'm sure you'll just dismiss these examples, but they are proof that she does do GOP events for the faithful, and I suspect many more could be found. Also, lots of people take her seriously, as evidenced by her book sales and the fact she is considered enough of a draw to share the stage with top-tier GOP Presidential candidates at CPAC [which is a GOP event, in practice, and to claim otherwise is absurd]. So, actually, I hit all my five with Ann, and you failed to do so with any of the examples [Marcotte, Hamsher, various Kos posters] you cited. Better luck next time, chief.

MikeinSC said...

A question for those who believe that Coulter is not taken seriously by Republicans: If that's the case, then why doesn't Romney take this golden opportunity to pull a Sister Souljah?

Same reason Edwards didn't do the same with Marcotte. Bad political judgment.

Think about it: the comment was so bad that even the CPAC audience hesitated before applauding. By denouncing it, Romney could be seen as an agent of tolerance without compromising his (reclaimed) conservative principles, unless considering John Edwards a faggot is now an article of conservative faith.

Bad political judgment, again.

Plus, he becomes the magnanimous defender of poor John Edwards. By extending an olive branch in Edwards' direction, he makes nice with the consensus #3 Dem candidate so if/when he has to bash Hillary or Obama in the general it will seem more authentic.

Hands down the dumbest thing I've ever read in my life. Bush, in 2004, went out of his way to PRAISE Kerry's military service --- but it didn't seem to make a difference.

Why the heck should any Republican try to "extend an olive branch" to a Democrat who will NEVER do the same in return?

The only fatal flaw in the plan would be if he just can't spurn Ann Coulter because too many Republican primary voters will hate him for it. Since he hasn't done it yet, I can only assume that's a big reason.

Or he made a bad political judgment.

After all, using that logic, Edwards believes most Dem primary voters hate white men and are viciously anti-Christian.
-=Mike

MikeinSC said...

Psst, Mike, Ann has been hired to speak at GOP fundraisers and events. A simple Google search will show that she's spoken on the rubber-chicken circuit for people like the Kent County, Michigan Republican Party’s annual Lincoln Day lunch, the Denton County, Texas Republican Party's annual Lincoln-Reagan Dinner, various college Republican events, and similar gatherings.

Two county dunners and college Republican events? Well, blow me down. You sure proved your point. I suppose this trumps Dem candidates going to Kosfest, right?

And that's just what I got off of a two-minute internet look-see. I'm sure you'll just dismiss these examples, but they are proof that she does do GOP events for the faithful, and I suspect many more could be found. Also, lots of people take her seriously, as evidenced by her book sales and the fact she is considered enough of a draw to share the stage with top-tier GOP Presidential candidates at CPAC [which is a GOP event, in practice, and to claim otherwise is absurd]. So, actually, I hit all my five with Ann, and you failed to do so with any of the examples [Marcotte, Hamsher, various Kos posters] you cited. Better luck next time, chief.

A guy who can eat shards of glass will draw a crowd. It doesn't mean anybody takes him seriously.

You hit 3 of your 5. I hit 4 of 5 with my examples. Sorry, Sparky.
-=Mike

chuckR said...

coulter - Edwards is a faggot

wade_garrett - Coulter has a face made of testicle skin (??)

soulmates!

reality check said...

No has said you have an obligation, that's your own straw man.

You have an opportunity.

You have an opportunity that those of us that would like to make a difference will probably never have.

You have tenure. You are an op-ed writer for the Times. You are on NPR. You are a respected law professor.

You have an opportunity.

You claim that you don't approve of her. You claim that you don't approve of smear politics. You claim that you are a Democrat. You claim that you don't like the way traditional media works. You claim that professors that do not use their power of tenure are cowardly.

You have an opportunity to a) blog about it, b) write an op-ed, c) write a letter to the NY Times, d) other.

No says you have an obligation.

You have an opportunity, you have motive to use that opportunity, and you are failing to make use of that opportunity.

Why?

Doyle said...

Amanda Marcotte? Give me a break. She was made famous by Bill Donahue. Right wingers had no earthly idea who she was before they decided to get really mad about the things they dug up in her blog archives. She was never a major figure in the mainstream media except to be vilified for her most intemperate writing.

Coulter is the queen of all media, by comparison.

MikeinSC said...

Amanda Marcotte? Give me a break. She was made famous by Bill Donahue. Right wingers had no earthly idea who she was before they decided to get really mad about the things they dug up in her blog archives. She was never a major figure in the mainstream media except to be vilified for her most intemperate writing.

Coulter is the queen of all media, by comparison.

Amanda was hired by a Presidential candidate.

Coulter was not.
-=Mike

Doyle said...

Kos is not a raving lunatic like Coulter. The worst thing that's been pinned on him was being unsympathetic to contractors who died in Iraq, making a distinction between patriotic duty and profit motive. Edgy? Sure, and not something you'd expect an actual candidate to say. But there's nothing wrong with Dem candidates posting diaries on Kos or appearing at the Kos convention in the way that there is something wrong with promoting or even accepting the affections of Ann Coulter.

MikeinSC said...

Kos is not a raving lunatic like Coulter.

He very much is, but you agree with him and, thus, don't have a problem with it. He has produced one of the most poisonously vicious communities on the internet.

The worst thing that's been pinned on him was being unsympathetic to contractors who died in Iraq, making a distinction between patriotic duty and profit motive. Edgy? Sure, and not something you'd expect an actual candidate to say. But there's nothing wrong with Dem candidates posting diaries on Kos or appearing at the Kos convention in the way that there is something wrong with promoting or even accepting the affections of Ann Coulter.

Because you agree with Kos.

Embrace your hypocrisy, since it's pretty obvious.
-=Mike

Doyle said...

Mike -

Don't you get it? Republican candidates aren't that stupid. It's to their advantage not to associate with her directly, and let her operate independently to rally the Base.

Edwards hired Marcotte probably because she's not as consistently unhinged as Coulter, without checking to make sure she hadn't ever gotten unhinged (as the "tithing Catholics" bit admittedly was).

But she didn't just call John Edwards a faggot after being introduced by Mitt Romney, so try to keep your eye on the ball.

hdhouse said...

who takes Ann Coulter seriously??

Ann Coulter
Faux Noise

Doyle said...

No, it's not just that I agree with Kos, it's that Kos really doesn't use the kind of foul, knowingly false smears that are Coulter's stock in trade. And, crucially, he doesn't call conservatives traitors who deserve to be killed because they hate America and want to see the terrorists win. That's worse than "Bush lied, people died" which is both true and lacks an exhortation to violence.

MikeinSC said...

Don't you get it? Republican candidates aren't that stupid. It's to their advantage not to associate with her directly, and let her operate independently to rally the Base.

So you admit they don't do it?

Then what's your complaint?

Edwards hired Marcotte probably because she's not as consistently unhinged as Coulter, without checking to make sure she hadn't ever gotten unhinged (as the "tithing Catholics" bit admittedly was).

Spoken like somebody who never read Pandagon.

But she didn't just call John Edwards a faggot after being introduced by Mitt Romney, so try to keep your eye on the ball.

No, she just insulted millions upon millions of people the Dems are trying to convince they really like and appreciate.

Yeah, MUCH different.
-=Mike

MikeinSC said...

No, it's not just that I agree with Kos, it's that Kos really doesn't use the kind of foul, knowingly false smears that are Coulter's stock in trade. And, crucially, he doesn't call conservatives traitors who deserve to be killed because they hate America and want to see the terrorists win. That's worse than "Bush lied, people died" which is both true and lacks an exhortation to violence.

Which makes the comments about Cheney dying all the more baffling, huh?
-=Mike

pablo H said...

Hurray for Anne Coulter!

I don’t know what’s funnier, Coulter’s remarks or the cant and hypocrisy of the left. She really irreverent and cutting edge. Glad all the liberals could take time out from calling George Bush a Nazi and conservatives “racists” and “bigots” to denounce Coulter for her bad manners and name calling.
Too bad all the Grannies and phony conservatives can’t show the same amount of courage as Coulter.

Next: Goldberg on Bloggingheads crying and apologizing to liberals for conservatives inviting “that women” to the conference. Followed by Eric Alterman calling conservatives every name in the book.

Doyle said...

Whose comments about Cheney dying? You better mean Kos and have a link or you're just bringing up commenters on the Huffington Post, which would be unbelievably lame even by the standards of right wing argumentation.

reality check said...

He very much is, but you agree with him and, thus, don't have a problem with it. He has produced one of the most poisonously vicious communities on the internet.

Assertion does not make something true.

Cite, prove, or recant.

somefeller said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
somefeller said...

Well, as predicted, when shown examples of GOP events where Ann Coulter has spoken, thus showing that Ann does speak to GOP clubs (her speakers bureau website also shows that) MikeinSC just waves his hand and dismisses the examples. A genius move! So clever!

He then states that "A guy who can eat shards of glass will draw a crowd. It doesn't mean anybody takes him seriously." It was odd for Mike to mention what he does for a living with this retort, but it doesn't disprove the fact that many people do take Ann Coulter seriously, despite Mike's denials of that fact.

Mike also states that he hit 4 out of 5 with his examples, when, if you actually go example-by-example (sorry, Mike, you don't get to consolidate all your examples to try and get to 5, it's an example-by-example argument) he fails to do so. He at best gets 1 or 2 with Markos Moulitsas (though his original post simply referred to various Kos denizens, not the big guy himself).

Lesson: Mike has no idea what he's talking about. However, he gets an Ann Coulter action figure as a consolation prize, to keep him warm this Saturday night and as a thank-you for participating in the game.

Doyle said...

So you admit they don't [associate directly with Coulter]?

Then what's your complaint?


My complaint is that there is a man with a nonzero chance of becoming president of the United States who recently said the following:

"I am happy to hear that after you hear from me, you will hear from Ann Coulter. That is a good thing. Oh yeah!”

MikeinSC said...

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/2/27/13520/5754

Kos approves all comments.
-=Mike

Cedarford said...

I don't see any reason why Ann Althouse has to involve herself in grievance politics.

That is the game commies and post-commies play where some massive grievance or outrage happens like a professor supposedly expressing counterevolutinary thoughts about Mao's wife, according to anonymous accusers, and everyone is supposed to dutifully line up, sing statements of denunciation, and endorse the Upcoming Show Trial.

And if you don't - well, then you side with...the enemy!! The Lacrosse rapists! The user of a racist epithet! By omission, the marxist thought goes, you effectively endorse the transgressor.
Something to think about if you don't sign on to the collective denunciation.....Not that we are pressuring you...

*********************
In context, Coulter clearly made a cheap slur. But in context of free speech, I get leery of the ever-growing crowds on the Left or Right that demand punishment, career destruction for "unacceptable speech that hurts".

Also "faggot" is one of those tribal words like "nigger". Gays can use "faggot" liberally in things like Faggots Unite! signs in gay pride parades, blacks can freely use nigger or niggah or niggaz in songs and "authentic vernacular" - but any use outside the "tribe" is enough to turn the everyday users into quivering piles of damaged and aggrieved protoplasm demanding justice and compense for all the hurt caused. Which is a pile of shit. It is just an excuse for launching marxist grievance theatrics.

Coulter should be spanked for a gratuitous slur, but spare me the Show Trial.

And we cannot have a true functioning democracy if we continue to claim that honest, open discussion and criticism of certain events transpiring in "certified victim groups" are off-limits.

Examples:

1. Saying an honest opinion that Israel has done a poor job giving Israeli Arabs civil rights is free speech. It is not cause to brand the persons on the Left that believes that evil, anti-Semitic and compelled to collectively apologize and accept punishment.

2. Saying gays brought on much of the pain and damage of AIDs with their sexual mores, as an opinion, is not proof that the speaker is insensitive and out to push Christian judgement. And should accept the aggrieved gay community's verdict that they should apologize, shut up, and work on a cure for AIDs instead.

MikeinSC said...

My complaint is that there is a man with a nonzero chance of becoming president of the United States who recently said the following:

"I am happy to hear that after you hear from me, you will hear from Ann Coulter. That is a good thing. Oh yeah!”

I thought he said it was good they'd hear from moderates.
-=Mike

Minor Ripper said...

great post--thanks...don't know if you've seen this video of Ann Coulter, but it's pretty classic:
http://minor-ripper.blogspot.com/2006/12/ann-coulter-gets-owned.html

ASX said...

MikeInSC:
Do you take pills to enhance your detachment from reality? Or were you born that way? Do you bask in foolishness for fun and sport? Or are you driven to it by compulsions that are beyond your control?

Have you sought help for your problem?

At least it's amusing.

reality check said...

Blogger’s style guide for Civility and Seriousness

somefeller said...

Here's a list of suggestions from Rick Moran at Right Wing Nut House (hey, he named the blog). While he asks people on the right and left to do the following, I would suggest that those of you on the right who say that Ann Coulter doesn't represent your conservatism and your party might particularly want to follow his suggestions, if you really want to provide proof that you want her off the stage. From the site:

I urge everyone – right and left – to take the following actions:

1. Never write another blog post about Ann Coulter no matter how outrageous, cruel, or bigoted her language.

2. Immediately write the Presidents of Fox News, MSNBC, and CNN demanding that they refuse to schedule Coulter on any show for any reason on their networks.

3. Write the editor of Human Events and demand that they drop her column.

4. If her column appears in your local newspaper, write a letter to the editor demanding that they drop her column.

5. If you see her writings in any on line or print publication, write the editor and demand that they stop carrying her columns.

6. Any upcoming forum in which she is scheduled as a speaker or panel participant, write a letter to the organizers and make it clear that the reason you are not attending is due to Coulter’s presence.

reader_iam said...

who takes Ann Coulter seriously??

She's speaking at the Reclaiming America for Christ conference (sponsored by the Center to Reclaim America for Christ, an offshoot of D. James Kennedy's Coral Ridge Ministries; Kennedy is influential among conservative evangelicals).

She's taken seriously enough to be welcome there. Someone who occasionally pops up here took that seriously enough to write a letter of objection a few weeks back. Check out the response he got (he includes it in his post)!

CPAC is influential, and many influential, and in some cases also well known, conservatives--whether candidates, activists, bloggers, financial contributors--attend those events.

I think it's a little disingenuous to dismiss CPAC etc. as having no influence, or of they're being no symbolic content to the speakers they choose to appeal to their audiences. Unless someone's going to argue that people select a particular speaker independent of whether that speaker is likely to "work" with the specific audience expected at an event?

I think we're dodging the issue here. Whether she represents the views specific national figures etc. is not the only point. The fact is that she appeals to a great number of people who, whether or not they're well known or are influential as individuals, they certainly collectively.

Tell me how that's not so.

MikeinSC said...

Do you take pills to enhance your detachment from reality? Or were you born that way? Do you bask in foolishness for fun and sport? Or are you driven to it by compulsions that are beyond your control?

I guess some circles confuse ad hominem for logic. You, apparently, are in one of those circles.

Age and experience, combined with education, might help you overcome the affliction.

I think we're dodging the issue here. Whether she represents the views specific national figures etc. is not the only point. The fact is that she appeals to a great number of people who, whether or not they're well known or are influential as individuals, they certainly collectively.

Lots of groups think "collectively".
-=mike

Doyle said...

But in context of free speech, I get leery of the ever-growing crowds on the Left or Right that demand punishment, career destruction for "unacceptable speech that hurts".

This is my favorite bogus argument in Coulter's defense: it's a free country. Of course it is, but no one is advocating that she be imprisoned (as she advocates the imprisonment of journalists, for example).

But "career destruction"? Absolutely! Mel Gibson's career has been, at a minimum, badly damaged for his antisemitic tirade. Why is there more accountability for the speech of our actors/directors than national political pundits?

The problem isn't with her speech, it's with that speech being seen as legitimate political discourse, and her being a hot commodity for cable news shows.

She should have nothing to fear from the law (aside from that voter fraud beef), but social and professional sanction? Of course.

boston70 said...

Larry,
As a fag I can say fag hag-we have a right. Coulter has been out at gay bars with gay men in Miami-friends have seen her. She likes the gays.
And Drudge is gay he has tried it (with no success because he is butt ugly) with other gays who have written about it including David Brock.
Larry, Michael Moore was at the 2004 DNC. I don't recall him on the stage calling George Bush a moran. Also, Moore is not a democrat. He voted for Ralph Nader.
As opposed to Coulter who was speaking at CPAC calling Edwards a faggot. She has also referred to Al Gore as a fag and Bill Clinton, in a gay bathhouse kind of way, as gay.
Face it, these type of comments disgust liberals but obviously a faction of the conservative population thrive on it. Otherwise, she wouldn't be received as such as rock star in these venues.
Don't worry sh will be on Hannity on Monday bitching about having to be "PC".
It's all about the hate. In the 60's the republicans devised the southern strategy i.e. we hate the blacks too. That's when all the dixiecrats turned to republicans because they hated too.
Now it is the gays and brown people that are the new blacks.

Doyle said...

UPDATE:

The Republican big three have all condemned the remark.

Romney's spokesman did not exactly breathe fire: "It was an offensive remark. Governor Romney believes all people should be treated with dignity and respect." Pretty much the minimum level of outrage possible.

Nagourney also takes pains to point out that Romney was not in the room when Coulter spoke, so I guess he didn't physically get any of her hate-juice on him.

reader_iam said...

Mike:

I left out the word "are"--the phrase should have been "they certainly are collectively," as in "influential."

Better would have been: "...or are influential as individuals, they certainly are as a group.

Groups can be political actors, too, you know. They have influence. I mean--isn't that why groups formed? To influence things? To accomplish something?

We're not talking the neighborhood playgroup here.

reader_iam said...

"Collectivist thinking" was not my reference. "Collectively" has, I guess, become a loaded word?

Doyle said...

Mike, not only is it manifestly false that "Kos approves all comments," but that thread contains exactly zero expressions of regret that Cheney was not killed in the blast.

In fact, a number of people say that they are glad he wasn't killed because he would become a martyr for the neocons. A lot of them want to see him tried, but not killed.

reader_iam said...

I am missing something, Althouse, by the way. Who lodged the "idiotic charge"? Am I missing something in one of the links? I did post about Coulter yesterday (yeah, one of the chumps--LOL), but then was out of the loop due to personal circumstances. Did I miss a new Althousiana flap?

Gerry said...

I repudiate Ann Coulter's idiocy.

But her comment is not what really bothers me.

What really bothers me is that she got some applause, and then afterwards had a long line of people wanting to get her to sign a book for them...

...all among my "fellow" conservatives.

I am much more bothered by the fact that the crowd there was not bothered by her comment, than by her comment. She is just one asshole. They are an unfortunately sizable portion of 'our' base.

That disturbs me. A lot.

mcg said...

From the linked NYTimes article: Ms. Coulter, asked for a reaction to the Republican criticism, said in an e-mail message: “C’mon, it was a joke. I would never insult gays by suggesting that they are like John Edwards. That would be mean.”

reader_iam said...

Althouse: Never mind.

Gerry: Yep.

AJ Lynch said...

Ann:
I find Coulter to be very funny too. I admit I enjoy her talent for caustic barbs.

MadisonMan said...

and it guaranteed that the top story coming out of the CPAC convention isn't Rudy Giuliani's speech.

And I wonder what the CPAP organizers wanted the convention to be known for? How well the candidates groveled, or some Coulter Trash-talk?

Gahrie said...

As a fag I can say fag hag-we have a right.

I call bullshit. Either a word is OK for everyone to use, or it's not OK for anyone to use.

Internet Ronin said...

hd house: Every once in a blue moon we agree! This is one of those times ;-)

who takes Ann Coulter seriously??

Ann Coulter
Faux Noise

Ann Coulter is an entertainer,and most people don't care about her at all. The few that do are probably equally divided between lovers & haters. As both of them make lots of noise about her, she makes lots of money, and this is a busy thread.

I'm always amused when someone drops into some blog, not just this one, and DEMANDS that the proprietor address their personal issue as if it was the MOST IMPORTANT thing in the world. I guess it is to them, but most of the time, I find whatever subject has caused them to get on their high horse and gallop hither and yon is pretty insignificant.

Internet Ronin said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Internet Ronin said...

I think you're right, gahrie. Just because I am gay, doesn't give me a right to call someone a "fag hag." I can't imagine why boston70 thinks it does. AFAIK, it has always been nothing more than a perjorative term applied to women who enjoy the company of gay men. If such a woman wishes to call herself that, in jest or otherwise, that is her business alone.

Daryl Herbert said...

I still don't understand why this is such a big deal.

It's okay to say that gays are all deranged, sexual deviants, unfaithful, want to bugger little boys, rebelling against god, unfit to raise children, should be denied the privileges that go along with marriage, should not be protected from job discrimination, should be harassed by other children in public schools*, when people target them for cruel attacks we shouldn't increase the penalties like we do for attacks targeted at women/blacks/Jews/etc. . . . but it's wrong to call them "faggots"?

* Yes, there are people who want gay children to be bullied in schools. They say this will discourage other children from coming out and teach other children to reject gayness. If being gay means you go to Hell, and bullying makes someone less likely to be gay, how could any compassionate Christian parent be against it?

If gays really are all servants of the anti-Christ, aren't we justified in calling the America-hating, child-raping faggots, faggots?

This issue goes a lot deeper than politeness. It would be extremely hypocritical for CPAC to tell people to stop using the word "faggot," but go ahead demonizing gays and denying them legal equality every possible way. Keep hating the gays, just don't make it so obvious. We have enough covert racial and religious bigots in the GOP as it is ("macaca!"), we don't need this too.

It's easy to dismiss the GOP's bigotry problem. The easiest way is to get angry right back in the critics' faces. But that won't make the problem go away, it only casts a larger shadow for it to hide in.

Since all the GOP candidates are about equally good on the war, I will be casting my vote in the primary for the least bigoted among them.

Peter Palladas said...

homophobia

Captain Pedantic here:

Please never use this word to mean a 'fear and/or a hatred of homosexual men and women'.

If correctly pronounced with the Greek first 'o' in 'homo' the word means 'fear of sameness'.

If incorrectly pronounced with the Latin 'o' it means 'fear of human beings'.

The former is a desperately rare form of psychosis and a symptom of reverse autism.

The latter, though an entirely reasonable emotional and psychological response to the human race taken as a whole, has nothing to do with sex or sexuality.

'Homophobia' is a linguistic nonsense, a philological abomination, and should not be encouraged in polite society.

If you did truly wish for a single word to encompass all sides of this complex social and moral debate one should prefer 'heterophobia' - fear of difference.

Which about sums it all up rather neatly.

The Exalted said...

She apparently makes a lot more money being a gadfly and talking head than I suspect she ever did as an attorney.

she was fired from her new york city big law job.

and ann, people take her bait not to denounce her, but to denounce the so-called "MSM" outlets that still bring this joker on. if a liberal said the same about, say, rudy giuliani, do you think they would get near cnn or msnbc? give me a break.

Simon said...

To add to Peter's 5:58 PM comment - even if one accepted for sake of argument that homophobia was an adequate term, homophobia is inapt. Most people who are termed "homophobes" aren't afraid of homosexuals, they don't like them (or more precisely, don't like an aspect of their behavior). Calling them homophobes is seems like conceit, a way of belittling someone who disagrees with you by saying that they must just be afraid, or must just not understand.

reality check said...

Ah poor Simon the lawyer wanna be.

Sorry Simon, you don't get to make up the English Language.

Not even Abu Gonzales and the Pretzeldent are at that stage yet (give them time!)

boston70 said...

Women I know don't mind being called a fag hag-they call themselves this term. For my friends and I it is a compliment. As in, we are really glad we have you as are best girlfriend.

The difference between the left's fags and the right's fags is that left (for the most part) embraces their fags.

On the other hand homosexuality on the right is repressed, hidden lied and about and cover up. As a result, you have examples of Mark Foley and the mayor of Spokane Washington and Ted Haggard. Resorting to unhealthy relationship/situations in order to satisfy their human needs.
I can't imagine what it must be like to live in those two worlds of being a republican and being gay.
The list of these people is endless. David Dreier, Ken Mehlman of today and Angels in America Roy Cohn who denied it on his deathbed. It is very sad

Gahrie said...

Boston70:

Women I know don't mind being called a fag hag-they call themselves this term. For my friends and I it is a compliment. As in, we are really glad we have you as are best girlfriend.

So for you, the issue isn't that someone used the word faggot, it is that someone you don't agree with used the word faggot that is the problem, right? And you realize that you can use this issue as a weapon to attack the Right.

Well, at least you are being honest about it.

TMink said...

I always thought that the DNC and RNC spoke for themselves.

Trey

Simon said...

HDhouse - phobia, "an exaggerated usually inexplicable and illogical fear of a particular object, class of objects, or situation" (emphasis added), taken "from the Greek φόβος 'fear'." Unlike your bizarre attempt the other day to redefine a common alternative meaning out of the definition of the word "appeal," an argument so self-evidently meritless that it didn't even demand response, in this case there isn't even an alternative meaning of the term for you to hang your argument on. A phobia is a fear, not a visceral dislike - who's making up the English language to suit themselves? Seemingly, you.

reality check said...

And so Professor? Will you use the opportunity you have or squander it and pick up a remote control?

reality check said...

Simon and Gahrie are going to fight a two man war against society, talk about being members of the fantasy based society.

Stomp up and down you two, doesn't make you any less bigoted homophobes.

Gahrie said...

1) You don't know me, and your ad hominen attack is way off base.

2) My opposition to the gay lifestyle, and gay marriage does not make me a bigot or a homophobe. I am extremely tolerant, and even loving, towards the gay and lesbians in my life. There are many things that people do that I disapprove of, but nonetheless tolerate. If my simple refusal to endorse homosexuality makes me a bigot and a homophobe than words no longer have any meaning.

3) Do you believe that certain words are unsuitable for some people to use, but OK for others to use? If so, I assume you would include nigger and faggot. How about cunt? Any more? Are there any that only white heterosexual males can use? I have no fear of words. Words are tools, they only have the power you choose to give them. I refuse to cede any right to use a word that someone else is allowed to use. If Blacks can use the word nigger, homosexuals the word fag, and feminists the word cunt, then I can too.

reality check said...

I don't know you, but we all recognize you!

And I encourage you to use those words. You have nothing to be afraid of, and you are a brave brave brave white man.

You them early and use them often!

(One less wingnut around this hellhole.)

Simon said...

RC - I'm not even going to go as far as Gahrie; I don't need to defend myself. I really don't care if you think I'm a homophobe, either in the sense that you think I'm afraid of gays or you think I just plain don't like them. One of the great advantages of having no desire to seek elected office is that I get to choose whose opinion of me I care about. It's a very, very selective club. Your name isn't on the list.

Simon said...

BTW, RC - here's a quick way to guarantee your name's not on the list - say something idiotic enough to provoke something like this.

Bob said...

I believe Althouse has fairly summarized what Ann Coulter is about.

reality check said...

Okay Lawyer Simon, you just forth in the world telling clients and judges that you get to determine what the words mean, from originalist constructs.

I am glad you have decided you don't need to defend yourself, I am just wondering why you are.

Still would be nice to know that Ann actually used her degrees, tenure, and contacts to achieve something positive in this world.

(Apart from liveblogging her appearances in coffeehouses that is.)

Gahrie said...

Reality Check:

Something has happened to your blog...all of the posts have disappeared. I know you'll get right on this and fix it, because it makes you look like a major hypocrite for criticizing how Althouse uses her blog, and we wouldn't want that.

reality check said...

Jeez, so now I have some form of brave angry white man bigoted homophobe stalking me?

I just made a little piddle.

Gahrie said...

Stalking you?

Don't flatter yourself. I merely clicked on your name, and was sent to an empty blog.

Wait, are you saying that there hasn't been a mistake? That you have a blog that you aren't using, even to liveblog your appearances in coffeehouses?

Oh the disillusionment. Is there no unsullied man?

Alas, my Diogenesistic quest must continue....

Simon said...

"Still would be nice to know that Ann actually used her degrees, tenure, and contacts to achieve something positive in this world."

I think she has, and if you disagree, well, fuck you very much. Who the hell d'you think you are, you who wants to have an argument about the meaning of the english language? *eyeroll* What's next from you, an exegesis about why 2 + 2 actually = 5? Geez. Go bother someone else.

reality check said...

you who wants to have an argument about the meaning of the english language? *eyeroll* What's next from you, an exegesis about why 2 + 2 actually = 5?

Ha Ha! Pretty funny coming from the guy insisting that only he knows the true meaning of the word homophobia and that the rest of the world is wrong.

Anyway, your rough in civil language is once again proof that righties are just too nasty.

Simon, won't you think of the children?

Won't someone think of the children?

reality check said...

Who the hell d'you think you are

Who am I? Who am I?

I am the reality check!

Moon Rattled said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Craig Ranapia said...

Ann:

I assumed that you weren't going to waste time and energy denouncing Coulter's latest mouth-fart anyone more than you feel obliged to remind us that fire is hot, water wet, and it's really important to look both ways before crossing an eight lane highway during rush hour.

Paco Wové said...

I think it's too bad that you rose to the troll-bait, Althouse. Trolls like R.C. are really more like viruses -- they want to take over the machinery of your blog, and make it all about them: their issues, their causes, their pissy little shouting matches.

Once it's clear that someone has no interest in participating in what you want your blog to be about, there're only three paths to take: ask them to leave (hardly ever works; if they were cabable of that level of civility, they wouldn't be trolls), ban them (not always possible), or ignore them (the hardest of all).

LarryK said...

Doyle

I've been away for a while, but here are a few choice bits from Moore that, in my opinion, dwarf Coulter's worst - all were first posted on his own website, and although I don't have the links handy it would be easy enough to verify

- on September 12, 2001, Moore responded to the World Trade Center attacks by saying "hey, if you did this to get back at Bush voters, you picked the wrong targets, these places voted for Gore." Now, maybe this was a joke - man, are my sides splitting. Day 1 in the war on terror and this guy's first reaction is dudes, next time wipe out some yahoos in Alabama and me and my pals will laugh about it with you on the Huffington Post (OK, I'm paraphrasing).

- later on, during the war in Iraq, Moore praised the Baathist thugs and Al Quaeda remnants fighting the US forces saying "they are the Minutement of Iraq AND THEY WILL WIN!" So he's equating those interested in either perpetuating Saddaam's atrocities or creating a pre-medieval Islamist hellhole with America's founding fathers - nice.

- Moore also called for the deaths of America's troops, saying that more American troops needed to die to create public outrage and bring the war to an end

So, while the country is at war, we've got somebody who is encouraging the other side to kill our troops, take over a country that the US has just liberated, and redirect their next attacks within US borders towards people Moore really hates. And this is the guy the Democrats, as a party, embraced in 2004 (lots more could be said, by the way, I'm just sticking to the war on terror). As I said, I'm really no fan of Coulter, but making cracks about the 911 widows exploitng their victimhood or calling John Edwards a faggot seems like real small potatoes by comparison. Or just to see how outrageous Moore is, turn one of the above quips around, redirect it at the "enemies' of the right and put it in Coulter's mouth. For example, suppose after Timothy McVeigh bombed Oklahoma City, as an attack against the Federal government's power and what he perceived as its abuses, Ann Coulter's response would have been "i can understand why you wanted to wipe out some agents of the federal government - who wouldn't?- but these are solid, red state Americans. Next time, take out a few blocks in Harlem or South Central LA - those people have been sucking at the government teat for decades!"

Somehow, I don't think we'd be talking about her right now...

Hunter said...

Gahrie --

There's a phenomenon in language use called "reclaiming" which first came to prominence with the word "nigger." American Blacks use it among themselves (although I understand that it's largely a lower-class phenomenon) without offense; it's still not appropriate for a non-Black to use it. Gays have attempted to take back the words "queer" and "faggot," so yes, it is OK for us to use it and not for you to use it, because you are not part of the group and your motives are suspect. (And "faggot," in my experience, is never meant as a compliment.)

In the case of Coulter, let me just say two things:

She did it deliberately, as an insult to Edwards. Her defense was just as crude and insensitive as the original comment. She obviously thinks it's OK to use us as a joke.

My reaction to running across the word "faggot" used as an insult is what you might expect -- anger, hurt, dismay. This, you seem to think, is fine because you don't approve of my "lifestyle" (which involves really immoral things like going to work, paying bills, buying groceries, cleaning house, all that sort of self-centered, hedonistic stuff we gays are renowned for that is bringing civilization to total collapse even as we watch).

As for the "free country" advocates, yep -- she's free to say what she wants. She's not immune to being treated like a foul-mouthed, hateful creep because of it. And if she gets applause from conservatives for it -- well, boys and girls, she's yours -- you own her.

hdhouse said...

Gahrie spewed...
If Blacks can use the word nigger, homosexuals the word fag, and feminists the word cunt, then I can too."


Ahhh and there is the rub Gahrie...because you can doesn't mean you should or that you are obligated to. There are times in life when you keep your mouth shut.
Your time has come. Ann Coulter's time is long past.

As she is a lawyer who was responsible for getting rid of her head full of mush and transforming her into thinking like a lawyer.

Gahrie said...

Gays have attempted to take back the words "queer" and "faggot," so yes, it is OK for us to use it and not for you to use it, because you are not part of the group and your motives are suspect.

Bullshit. How would you react if I went around saying there are words that homosexuals aren't allowed to use. There are words that Blacks aren't allowed to use. There are words that women aren't allowed to use?

Then why the hell should I have to put up with it?

Fen said...

How would you react if I went around saying there are words that homosexuals aren't allowed to use

Like "breeders". They call us breeders with the same contempt that Coulter uses.

somefeller said...

Sorry, Simon, et al, but the word "homophobia" is now the commonly-used English word for "irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals" [see, e.g, Merriam-Webster online]. Maybe a better word could have been created for that phenomenon, but that's the word we all use, and the fact that you don't like that word or want to pick apart its etymology doesn't matter one bit. If the word "banana" somehow became the common word for the irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals, then the word "banana" would have that meaning, regardless of the objections of pedants.

Anyway, I encourage those of you who are white, male, straight, etc., who think words like nigger, faggot and cunt are words you should have a right to use, by gum, to use them whenever the spirit moves you to. That'll make it easy for the rest of us to easily identify the bigots and idiots in the crowd [generally, only bigots and idiots are the ones who want to make a big deal about the sheer injustice of the inability of whites to use the word nigger, straights to use the word faggot, etc.], and it might lead to a little Darwinian culling of the herd if you say such words in the wrong [right?] place.

Naked Lunch said...

Ah, the wide open ass end of the Republican party. Perhaps Rush Limbaugh and Newt Gingrich can restore some much needed civility and fairness.

Fen said...

Too funny. Naked Lunch et al preaching about civility and fairness.

Ann may regret appeasing the trolls on this. They'll only rachet up the bullying the next time she ignores their froth of the day

reality check said...

Gahrie, your protected words that you can reclaim that I cannot use are Whitey, Ofay, Redneck, Peckerwood, White Trash, Honky, and Honky Honky.

If you want to start a campaign to reclaim those words and make it so that other groups cannot use them, I will join your cause.

I'll toss in: cracker, trailer trash, angry white male, patriarch, patriarchy, gwei lo, and gaijin.

Beth said...

Gahrie, why do you want to call anyone a nigger, or a fag? And are you so dense not to realize that minorities form their own cultures as defense against the majority? There's nothing more pathetic than a white, straight man railing against all the awful ways in which he's denied. Rail on, you ridiculous creature. Spend your life pissing on everything like you own it.

Naked Lunch said...

Fen
I think you have me mistaken for someone else.

Doug said...

I think Ann Althouse and the people questioning why liberals continue to "feed" Ann Coulter are missing something. As a liberal, I don't want Coulter to apologize (I know she wouldn't mean it, so why bother), and I don't even particularly want her to stop making those offensive, bigoted remarks.

Every time she says something like that and gets attention for it -- whether it's from the left or somewhere else -- it just makes the right wing look like a bunch of mean-spirited, childish nut jobs. And that drives a lot of moderates and undecideds right into the Democrats' camp. Not necessarily all of them, but it at least makes people wonder about whom they really want to be associated with. The company you keep and all that.

So I, for one, hope Coulter keeps up this kind of crap. Once upon a time she may actually have been an important ally for the right, but at the moment she's one of the best assets the left could ever ask for.

Gahrie said...

Beth:

You are missing my point. I don't use those words. I just refuse to allow someone to tell me I can't if I choose to do so. It's just one more way for the Left to try and assert dominance and control. They claim the Right longs to be the thought police, but speech codes, PC and banning words are all products of the Left.

I am a teacher. And one of the biggest struggles I have every year is getting my students not to use the word nigger when referring to each other. The kids, especially the Black ones, but Whites and Hispanics use the word too, try to maske all the same tired arguments: "we're allowed to use it", "it doesn't mean anything" etc.

I repeat, either a word is appropriate for everybody, or it is inappropriate for everybody.

Fen said...

There's nothing more pathetic than a white, straight man railing against all the awful ways in which he's denied

Yah, we get that you have contempt for white straight men based on your own ignorant stereotypes.

But of course, you're not a bigot or racist, because only whites are capable of that...

Ann Althouse said...

Doug: "I think Ann Althouse and the people questioning why liberals continue to "feed" Ann Coulter are missing something."

Doug, this isn't something I've missed. Clearly, liberals have an interest in drawing attention to this and acting as if all sorts of Republicans, conservatives, etc. are responsible for it. This post of mine is just to say there is no way on earth that I'm responsible for her, and it's dishonest and ignorant for anyone to say it is -- and they were saying it. Clearly, the liberals who pushed me about this, are self-advantaging politicos who lack basic ethics. They are sleazeballs. I hope that you didn't miss that.

Hunter said...

From Gahrie:

Do you believe that certain words are unsuitable for some people to use, but OK for others to use? If so, I assume you would include nigger and faggot. How about cunt? Any more? Are there any that only white heterosexual males can use? I have no fear of words. Words are tools, they only have the power you choose to give them. I refuse to cede any right to use a word that someone else is allowed to use. If Blacks can use the word nigger, homosexuals the word fag, and feminists the word cunt, then I can too.

Suddenly, "not OK" becomes "not allowed"? Fine. Back to the myth of the left-wing thought police. (Now I understand how that got started.)

It's not about controlling your god-given right to be a boor. It's just pointing out that the use of insulting terms within the group they've been applied to has a different meaning than the use of those terms by those not within the group. If you think you can call someone "queer" and make it mean the same as when I call someone "queer," guess again. (As I pointed out, "faggot" is never a compliment, or even neutral.)

Sorry, but you're not the one who decides what these terms mean in different contexts. You can decide what you mean by using them, but don't expect anyone else to buy it.

Hunter said...

From Ann Althouse:

Clearly, liberals have an interest in drawing attention to this and acting as if all sorts of Republicans, conservatives, etc. are responsible for it. This post of mine is just to say there is no way on earth that I'm responsible for her, and it's dishonest and ignorant for anyone to say it is -- and they were saying it.

But the point is, all it takes is disavowing her. If you've aligned yourself right of center, she is, like it or not, one of the most visible faces of that constituency in a lot of minds (and not all on the left). I wasn't kidding when I said conservatives own her. When she gets a response like she got after that slur, everyone on that side of the aisle is tarred with it because of that, until they demonstrate otherwise.

As it stands, if the Democrats have any sense, they'll make that video clip part of every campaign ad throughout the election season.

somefeller said...

"Clearly, the liberals who pushed me about this, are self-advantaging politicos who lack basic ethics."

Who pushed you about this, Ann? I'm not asking this to be combative, I genuinely am interested in the answer. I hadn't noticed any liberal blogs claiming that you should write about the Coulter contretemps. I just assumed you did it out of general interest in the topic and in anticipation that you might get calls to do so, not that you actually had been pushed to do so. Who were the people who did the pushing?

reality check said...

Clearly, the liberals who pushed me about this, are self-advantaging politicos who lack basic ethics. They are sleazeballs. I hope that you didn't miss that.

You twist words as well as any of them, congratulations Professor Lawyer.

No one asked you to condemn these words with a blog post.

You were asked to use your tenure your respect in the media and your connections with the Times to protest their refusal (and the wapos, and the tv networks) to even discuss the issue.

Everyone assumes you don't like Coulter and condemn her.

The question is how you can refuse to do something as simple as write a letter to a newspaper editor to ask why they aren't even reporting on the issue.

Everything we know about you says that you condemn Coulter, the astonishment is that when you are asked to do something about it, you last out against liberals and call them sleazeballs.

You would have been a real treat on campus during the civil rights movement. Cause we know what you would not have done then!

Ann Althouse said...

somefeller: Who pushed me? It was the first comment on this post, which announced my NYT column. I wanted that thread to be about the column, of course, and an unscrupulous commenter hijacked a thread that was especially important to me. It was annoying and it kept up, so I chose to cut it off.

Oh, yeah, the unscrupulous commenter was Reality Check, who I see is dribbling over here.

Simon said...

Hunter said...
"[Althouse said 'This post of mine is just to say there is no way on earth that I'm responsible for her, and it's dishonest and ignorant for anyone to say it is -- and they were saying it.] But the point is, all it takes is disavowing her."

No, the point is that you're trying to establish a precedent from which to hang Althouse in the future: you want to be able to say "hey, you disavowed Ann Coulter when she said X, so obviously you agree with Y, who said Z, because you haven't disavowed them." It's a thinly-disguised trap.

reality check said...

the unscrupulous commenter was Reality Check, who I see is dribbling over here.

Well it's not quite as funny as "the facts have a liberal bias," but yeah, sorry you find reality to be unscrupulous.

Paco Wové said...

"You were asked to use your tenure your respect in the media and your connections with the Times to protest their refusal..."

i.e.,

"We have kidnapped your blog. You are asked to put your high media profile to work advancing causes we wish you to advance... oh, and put some unmarked, non-sequential twenties in a brown paper bag and leave it at..."

reality check said...

This is no different than her other action today, writing a letter to support Professor Kaplan. This is no different than asking respected academics to support the principles they are known to espouse.

The question is why she would shy away from affirming her own well known principles.

TMink said...

All this silliness over words. I do not mind being called a breeder, my wife and I are damn good breeders! We are a credit to breeders everywhere. And I am a cracker too, from a long line of rednecks. Hell, my grandfather married his dead brother's wife and the family considered it honorable. Oh yeah, and I am fat as well.

Other people's words are not how I measure myself, I measure myself based upon my choices. What other system of evaluation makes any sense at all? Teaching children to fear and recoil from words benefits only the trial lawyers and race baiters.

Call me a name? Please.

Trey

somefeller said...

Ann -- I hadn't read that post, so I was unaware of the comment stream on that one. I'm kind of surprised you thought that was enough pushing to merit a response, but I can understand your reasoning for doing so. Point well taken.

Gahrie said...

Sorry, but you're not the one who decides what these terms mean in different contexts. You can decide what you mean by using them, but don't expect anyone else to buy it.

But apparently you are? How does one apply for this position? Is it paid?

Are any conservative white heterosexual men even allowed to apply?

MikeinSC said...

It's to the point where I, as a conservative, will no longer condemn Coulter because it won't make a difference. Conservatives have condemned her repeatedly, magazines (Nat'l Review) have fired her --- but it's still all conservatives (and, somehow, Althouse who is not a conservative by any stretch) agree with her.

But it's unfair to tie liberals to the more offensive members of their community, such as Moore --- who has best-selling books and financially successful "documentaries" that are successful basically in liberal areas.
-=Mike

Daryl Herbert said...

I've changed my mind since my earlier post. Enforcing a ban on words like "faggot" is just a part of removing obvious displays of homophobia from the GOP (not counting policy initiatives). It's got to start somewhere.

If the GOP is the gay-haters party, that will only lead to our destruction as the rest of the country decides hating gays isn't acceptable. I get the sense a lot of conservatives think the solution to this is to convince the country that hating gays is okay. Taking "faggot" out of their arsenal helps.

MikeinSC said...

If the GOP is the gay-haters party

Considering how often libs mention that a conservative is gay, your premise is off.

How many times have we been told that Drudge is gay? Edwards and Kerry thought Cheney's daughter's sexuality was relevant for SOME reason.
-=Mike

Gahrie said...

RE: Reality Check

"Will no one rid me of this turbulent troll?"

reality check said...

Jeez, Gahrie went straight from stalking me to urging someone to kill me.

Ann, you are known by the company you keep. I ask you now to banninate Gahrie and urge other commenters to stop with the repellent hate speech.

Unless you condone that sort of thing.

MikeinSC said...

Is the sky blue in your alternate reality, RC?
-=Mike

Simon said...

reality check said...
"Ann, you are known by the company you keep. I ask you now to banninate Gahrie and urge other commenters to stop with the repellent hate speech. Unless you condone that sort of thing."

Thus ably proving the point that it's a trap.

Doug said...

Clearly, the liberals who pushed me about this, are self-advantaging politicos who lack basic ethics. They are sleazeballs. I hope that you didn't miss that.

No, I didn't. But neither did I miss the fact that when asked who exactly "pushed" you about this issue, you could only name one person. A for-all-intents-and-purposes anonymous blog commenter at that.

So don't act like this is some grand liberal conspiracy to turn your blog into Denounce-O-Matic.com, all right? It was one commenter, for Pete's sake. Whom you are well within your rights to ignore. You chose not to, but don't blame that on all of us.

Gahrie said...

Doug:

So don't act like this is some grand liberal conspiracy to turn your blog into Denounce-O-Matic.com, all right? It was one commenter, for Pete's sake. Whom you are well within your rights to ignore. You chose not to, but don't blame that on all of us.

1) That one commenter's action was just the latest in a clear and established pattern from the Left.

2) If every Conservative is tainted by Coulter and has to denounce her to prove their purity, then that commenter represents all of you on the Left.

Hunter said...

Simon said:

No, the point is that you're trying to establish a precedent from which to hang Althouse in the future: you want to be able to say "hey, you disavowed Ann Coulter when she said X, so obviously you agree with Y, who said Z, because you haven't disavowed them." It's a thinly-disguised trap.


I have no interest at all in "hanging" Althouse, nor do I have any need to set up a "precedent" to do so. It seems that in general, anyone who needs to be cut down to size does a pretty good job of providing ample ammunition on their own. My real point, quite aside from the nice little fantasy universe you're building here, is that Althouse is identified as being on the right. Coulter is taken as a spokesman for the right. The left can't disavow Coulter because she doesn't belong to them. If Althouse feels so moved, no matter what the stimulus (and I would think that simple outrage would be enough), fine. It doesn't really have much to do with me.

Gahrie said...

[Hunter said:] "Sorry, but you're not the one who decides what these terms mean in different contexts. You can decide what you mean by using them, but don't expect anyone else to buy it."

But apparently you are? How does one apply for this position? Is it paid?

Are any conservative white heterosexual men even allowed to apply?


Don't I wish. I'd clean up the language in no time.

What you don't seem to want to deal with is that language is a collective effort. Words take on certain meanings and connotations because enough people use them to denote and connote those ideas, and those meanings will vary to greater or lesser degree from subgroup to subgroup. (After all, vocabulary, is, in its inception, pretty arbitrary -- no word ever created had an intrinsic meaning, except maybe those derived from onomatopoeia, and even that changes from language to language.) I don't have any more ability to determine meanings than you or any other individual does, and I'm certainly not going to play the victim card on it, as you seem to be trying to do.

All I can do is take note of what words mean and use them appropriately, which includes not spouting gratuitous insults because I have a "right" to do so.

Gahrie also said:

2) If every Conservative is tainted by Coulter and has to denounce her to prove their purity, then that commenter represents all of you on the Left.


If Coulter keeps getting featured speaker status at conservative gatherings, then conservatives as a group will continue to be tainted by Coulter. Whether any individual conservative feels impelled to denounce her or not is up to them. Somehow, I doubt that Althouse's commenter is going to achieve that kind of notoriety (outside of this comment thread).

Simon said...

Hunter said...
"My real point ... is that Althouse is identified as being on the right."

She's identified as being on the right by people who are critical of her on the left. None of us who actually are on the right are so presumptuous as to claim her as one of our own, much as we might like to. Even if it were the case that those on the right have to apologize for Coulter, why do you think that you get the authoritaty to say who's on the right? That would be like global warming skeptics unilaterally saying who gets to decide what's actually valid data supporting or opposing global warming, would it not?