March 5, 2007

"John Edwards Breaks Silence on Coulter's 'Faggot' Barb."

Sounds painful!

ADDED: I'm picturing some garish fishhooklike weapon, but I can see another way of reading this bizarre headline -- the way that makes you wonder: Who is "Coulter's 'Faggot' Barb"? (I believe I learned to read like this from Mad Magazine. You know the regular feature I'm talking about -- from back in the old days?)

93 comments:

Simon said...

So when someone slanders him (and if he thinks he can make some money out of it), Edwards responds next business day. But when his two handpicked campaign bloggers are exposed as foul-mouthed brain-dead bigots, it takes his campaign how long, again, to figure out what to say...?

Ann Althouse said...

I think it's a boring story but I love the surreal image in the headline.

MadisonMan said...

I like the first sentence of his quote -- you can tell he's raised children. He needs a good editor, though -- that's where he should have stopped.

I think its important that we not reward hateful, selfish, childish behavior with attention

Fen said...

Edwards: important for all of us to speak out against language of this kind; it is the place where hatred gets its foothold, and we can't stand silently by and allow this kind of language to be used

Unless Coulter was a liberal blogger hired by Edwards. Then its all:

Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but that kind of intolerant language will not be permitted from anyone on my campaign, whether it's intended as satire, humor, or anything else. But I also believe in giving everyone a fair shake. I've talked to Amanda and Melissa; they have both assured me that it was never their intention to malign anyone's faith, and I take them at their word.

And bad move for him to respond to Coulter's nonense, or too keep it in the public eye for fundraising. The last thing John "I groom my hair for 15 minutes" Edwards needs to be associated with "faggotry".

He's done. And really, he was never anything more than a Sidekick to a Fop*

[* who served in Vietnam, btw]

Simon said...

MM - it would ring less hollow if he wasn't so obviously hoping that donors "pay" (so to speak) attention to that hateful, selfish, childish behavior and reward him.

The line isn't one that can't be used, it's just not one that Edwards can use, in light both of his own recent staff problems (if Pandagon had a masthead in the style of the Althouse masthead, it would read "hateful, selfish, childish behavior") and particularly since he's specifically trying to draw attention to it.

Bissage said...

Better to break silence than to break wind.

Barb might not be so lucky next time.

Ann Althouse said...

Bissage: You made me see it a new way. Coulter has a "faggot" named "Barb." I was picturing Coulter going about with a scary fishhooklike weapon known as a "faggot barb."

Ann Althouse said...

This is like that time I wanted you to talk about Wagner's underpants.

MadisonMan said...

Yes, Simon, that's why he needs an editor. Just say the one line -- add Coulter's between reward and hateful, and hope everyone has forgotten the Marcotte thing that was so many news cycles ago :). Leave the fundraising out of it, but of course, any politician who doesn't leap at the opportunity to raise funds doesn't remain a politician for long, apparently.

And I still can't forget the description of Coulter as having a complexion of Elbow and Testicle skin, made by someone else. (Should've said scrotum though). Everytime I see a picture of her...eeew.

Rob Tornoe said...

I'm an editorial cartoonist in New Jersey, and here's what I think of Ann Coulter:

To check out the cartoon, click here.

Let me know what you think.

hdhouse said...

simon speaks of foul-mouthed, brain dead bigot(s) as if that let's ann coulter off the hook. this is not the worst (unfortunately) of ms. coulter's bile, just the latest.

In all seriousness, would you like to be a member of a party that has Anne Coulter as a mouthpiece? If you don't condem her, then you, what?, agree with her? You find her appropriate? You what?

someone should pitch the GOP big tent someplace and use her as a tent stake.

Gahrie said...

In all seriousness, would you like to be a member of a party that has Anne Coulter as a mouthpiece

No.

I guess I'm lucky the Republican party hasn't hired her.

bill said...

Rob, am I supposed to know the women on the couch? I don't recognize them and the joke falls in the forest.

Anyway, I thought the joke was that Coulter was into discipline training and that's why she was popular with uptight Republicans. Feel free to provide your own graphic image. If you're stuck, maybe this dialogue will help:

Zed: Bring out the Gimp.
Maynard: But the Gimp's sleeping.
Zed: Well, I guess you're gonna have to go wake him up now, won't you?

Bruce Hayden said...

I think that Edwards' comments make him look worse than Coulter did. Tey just make him look like an overly sensitive pansy ass, which doesn't compute given his career as a trial lawyer. He would have done better by ignoring it, or letting surrogates answer for him. Coulter has gotten almost no support whatsoever from the right side of the blogosphere, but has been routinely harshly criticized. Indeed, before Edwards' response here, she was heading towards irrelevance.

mcg said...

"I think its important that we not reward hateful, selfish, childish behavior with attention," Edwards told reporters in Berkley, Calif.

Which is why I sent emails to everyone on my email list highlighting the comments and soliciting cash in response to it!

Fen said...

Coulter has gotten almost no support whatsoever from the right side of the blogosphere, but has been routinely harshly criticized.

Via Instapundit:

http://www.theamericanmind.com/2007/03/05/an-open-letter-to-cpac-sponsors-and-organizers-regarding-ann-coulter/

An Open Letter to CPAC Sponsors and Organizers Regarding Ann Coulter.

Conservatism treats humans as they are, as moral creatures possessing rational minds and capable of discerning right from wrong. There comes a time when we must speak out in the defense of the conservative movement, and make a stand for political civility. This is one of those times.

Ann Coulter used to serve the movement well. She was telegenic, intelligent, and witty. She was also fearless: saying provocative things to inspire deeper thought and cutting through the haze of competing information has its uses. But Coulter’s fearlessness has become an addiction to shock value. She draws attention to herself, rather than placing the spotlight on conservative ideas.


...We, the undersigned, request that CPAC speaking invitations no longer be extended to Ann Coulter.

Fen said...

To check out the cartoon, click here. Let me know what you think

1) I wish you had used the actual quote, instead of paraphrasing what she implied. That appears dishonest and thus limits the effect your going for.

2) A bit more subtlety please. Coulter's problem is her desire to incite for attention. I wish you'd touched on that more directly.

3) The artwork is good though.

rsb said...

Rob,
I do political cartoons on occasion and I have to agree with Bill. I don't know who those women are either. Your style is good - Personally, I would have drawn A.C. as a Clown in a Nazi Tu-Tu wading in a cesspool with flies dying all around her. She deserves no less.

Fen said...

/Edwards "fixed"

But I also believe in giving everyone a fair shake. I've talked to Ann Coulter; she has assured me that it was never her intention to malign anyone's sexual preference, and I take her at her word.

What is his platofrm going to be again? "There are two America's & I'm outraged that Coulter implied I was a faggot" ?

All while radical Islam seeks to destroy the Great Satan? Like I said, sidekick to a Fop*

[* who served in Viet Nam]

Joseph Hovsep said...

Who is "Coulter's 'Faggot' Barb"?

'Faggot Barb' could be Coulter's own drag queen persona. I'm thinking of Andrew Sullivan's description of her as a "drag queen posing as a fascist."

Fen said...

Nah, fascist and nazi metaphors lose your audience. Its as tiresome and easily discounted as the Bush=Hitler meme. Shoot higher.

Doyle said...

"Breaks silence"? Was he expected to personally respond immediately?

I just don't know why the article made no mention of Amanda Marcotte. Don't they realize that her hiring changed everything, and is the lens through which all things Edwards should be viewed?

Naked Lunch said...

I think it's a boring story but I love the surreal image in the headline.

The same FOX News that stuck it's necrophiliac microphone into the corpse of Anna Nicole Smith 121 times last Friday, compared to 10 times for the unfolding Walter Reed scandal. Crickets from the right blogosphere as well. Hmmph.

Fritz said...

Why so many on the right have to go out of their way to trash Ann Coulter is beyond my comprehension. I'm far more offended by Hillary's and Obama's condescending language to black people this Selma Sunday. btw, when did BO join in the civil rights movement, he said WE US? Big deal, she referred to the silk pony as a faggot. "C'mon, it was a joke. I would never insult gays by suggesting that they are like John Edwards. That would be mean," Coulter told the New York Times. Even better!

Fen said...

naked lunch: The same FOX News that stuck it's necrophiliac microphone into the corpse of Anna Nicole Smith 121 times last Friday

Such a sweet metaphor, naked - stick a mic into a corpse? I've never like the way FOX [esp Greta]sensationalizes the underwear-sniffing rubbberneck. But then, I don't hang around to count how many times they penetrate the corpse.

Maybe you could add some original thought to the thread about Hillary, instead of distracting with your froth of the day?

Naked Lunch said...

And here I thought this thread was about a FOX headline, not a thread about Hillary. Sorry I couldn't top Ann's faggot fish-hook barbs, or the hilariousness of a faggot named Barb.

Fen said...

Its about Edward's reaction to Coulter. Give us someting original, we already know everything you could say about "Faux" news.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

What is more worrisome to me than the comment that Ann Coulter made is the speed with which she is being taken to task for her "thoughtcrime". This zeal we have to beat political correctness into each other is troubling.

Was her remark a nice thing to say? No. Is it even true? Who cares. BUT.....the point that she was attempting to make is that when Isaiah Washington from Grey's Anatomy who uttered the word faggot he was immediately sent to rehab. I don't think she verbally made her point very clearly but the resulting backlash has made it for her. The Brain Police pounce and it is rehabilitation training for anyone who steps outside of the narrowly defined correct language.

The left as well as the right are so anxious to toe the Political Correctness line that we are increasingly seeing more and more totalitarian actions taken to make sure we commit no think crimes.

"She had not a thought in her head that was not a slogan, and there was no imbecility, absolutely none, that she was not capable of swallowing if the Party handed it out to her." Sound familiar?

Naked Lunch said...

Fen
I thought the reaction from the audience at CPAC was more telling than Edward's reaction. She's been calling Dems faggots for years, along with the charming poisoning and hanging of liberals references.

So the question is why she thinks this fires up the base. Answer is her fans buy her books in droves, and they love it. The media gives her attention, but fail to scrutinize her "work" for fear of fallout from the goons that worship her.

Doyle said...

I know, DBQ. One minute they tell you you can't use anti-gay slurs to smear Democratic presidential candidates and the next minute we're down the slippery slope to the thought police.

I just don't get you people.

Doyle said...

the point that she was attempting to make is that when Isaiah Washington from Grey's Anatomy who uttered the word faggot he was immediately sent to rehab.

No, she was trying to make a clever reference to that incident, but her "point" was to call John Edwards a faggot.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

Doyle, I am not in anyway defending what she said. I was appalled by her. I don't think she should have said it at all, but that is her right and your right and mine to be objectionable and insulting....so far anyway. It should be our right to not listen. To tune her out. To not give her and others like her the attention they are craving.

However, now when people become objectionable like Mel Gibson or Isiah Washington, the new solution is to be "rehabilitated" or "re-educated" because their thoughts are not in line with the politically correct allowed thoughts. Students are being disciplined for using "verboten" words like gay. http://www.denverpost.com/headlines/ci_5324412 What next? Rehabilitation camps for people who actually are homosexual, for people who have an unpopular religious belief or who hold contrary views on global warming?

It is political correctness run amok.

Doyle said...

DBQ -

I think the trend towards going to alcohol rehab is a) for people who have alcohol problems, like Mel Gibson or b) for people who want to avoid public scrutiny, like Mark Foley (or Mel Gibson).

There are no rehab facilities that I'm aware of that purport to cure people of being Ann Coulter, although I'd like to think there may come a day...

mcg said...

Of course she was alluding to the whole stupidly overblown Isaiah Washington business. It does seem now that rehab is supposed to be some magic pill to soothe the anger of the offended. But it was still the most boneheaded stunt I think she's ever pulled, and she's pulled plenty.

Jeremy said...

Doyle,
I got no dog in this fight, but the Mel Gibson/rehab comment wasn't in reference to his alcoholism but to his promised meeting with Jewish leaders (and possibly other aggrieved people groups?)to begin the process of healing. And I thought Washington did actually go to some kind "re-education" program. Perhaps like the kind that UW faculty will get to enjoy after the Hmong men-as-killers bruhaha?

Joseph Hovsep said...

I think I agree with some commenters about Coulter's reference to the ridiculous practice of going to "rehab" for saying or doing socially offensive things. Its stupid and transparently phoney and Coulter was making fun of that and I agree with her on that. But no one is forced into rehab. Celebrities go to rehab to deflect attention from the bad things they've done and pretend they did wrong because of alcoholism, drugs, childhood beatings, social anxiety disorder, whatever. Its BS, but its self-initiated public relations BS, not PC-brainwashing BS.

I don't see how the inclusion of that reference in any way makes her comment less offensive. She said she can't talk about Edwards because if she talked about him she would have to use the term "faggot" and end up in rehab. I can't read that as anything but aggressively homophobic, nasty and tasteless. But that's her style and everyone knew it beforehand.

What is truly shocking to me is Romney's political ineptitude. In his eagerness to paint himself more conservative than his rivals, he got in bed with one of the most notorious, incendiary, consitently offensive pundits out there, gave her a glowing introduction, and now there's even footage of him joking with Coulter backstage about naming her his VP. Why? I just don't get it. But I think Romney's toast now.

DBQ: What is more worrisome to me than the comment that Ann Coulter made is the speed with which she is being taken to task for her "thoughtcrime". ... Was her remark a nice thing to say? No. Is it even true? Who cares.

Since when is using epithets during a speech at a political conference "thoughtcrime"? She was exercising her right to free speech. Conservatives and liberals alike then exercised their right to free speech in attacking her for her display of bigotry and Romney and CPAC for promoting her and giving her a prominent place to speak. This seems like an example of free speech and the marketplace of ideas at its best.

And you bring up the issue of whether its true that John Edwards is a faggot? Is that even a question you can answer? Is Elton John a faggot? Is George Bush a Christofascist Godbag?

LoafingOaf said...

Simon: So when someone slanders him (and if he thinks he can make some money out of it), Edwards responds next business day. But when his two handpicked campaign bloggers are exposed as foul-mouthed brain-dead bigots, it takes his campaign how long, again, to figure out what to say...?

According to the record of press releases at the Christofascist Catholic League's website, it took Edwards less than 48 hours to issue a statement. Pretty quick considering it was a largely bullshit and manufactured scandal involving two bloggers hired to lowlevek positions, one of whom never even had said anything anti-Christian.

There is no evidence whatsoever that Edwards is a bigot or abides bogitry, so enough on that.

Meanwhile, Mitt Romney - the favored candidate of the Christianist Right - recently stated that he believes only people of religious faith are fit for high office. That sounds like anti-atheist bigotry to me.

Romney was also yucking it up with hardcore hatemonger and bomb-thrower Coulter, one of the biggest media heroines of the Christianist Right who recieved enthusiastic applause when she called Edwards a "faggot."

YouTube has captured the two anti-atheist bigots and political allies, Romney and Coulter, and while kissing each other's asses this exchange took place:

COULTER: No, they don't understand! We hate liberal atheists! You can't get these sectarian wars going with us. We're all Christians.

ROMNEY: We're not Sunni and Shia here!


How long will it take the good Christians of the Christianist Right to condemn this anti-atheist bigotry? Does Romney only hate liberal atheists, or does he hate all atheists? Will the media ask him to clarify? Why does he believe an atheist should not ever be in the White House? Believing in the nutty, objectively false things Mormons do automatically makes one more fit for office than an atheist?

I would vote for anyone over Romney.

Pogo said...

Re: "Christofascist Godbag"

Heavy metal hair band from Akron, circa 1987. They had one regional hit, "Crucifart", then broke up. The lead singer, Tony "Prosthesis" Snowdon now operates a popular arcade in the local mall.

Fen said...

There is no evidence whatsoever that Edwards is a bigot or abides bigotry, so enough on that.

Edwards kept his two bigots on the campaign - evidence that he abides bigotry. CPAC is no longer inviting Coulter to their events.

this anti-atheist bigotry

Sorry, I thought you guys were all extinct. I need to hire a better research staff. Dinner on me as an apology? [Its so easy...

Dust Bunny Queen said...

And you bring up the issue of whether its true that John Edwards is a faggot? Is that even a question you can answer?

I said, Who cares? I don't and I mean it.

But no one is forced into rehab. Celebrities go to rehab to deflect attention from the bad things they've done

True, no one is slapping a straight jacket on them and goose stepping them into the re-education centers, but there is coercion just the same. Be a good boy/girl and recant your heresy so you can continue to work. Who gets to decide if they have expressed bad thoughts? Is there a list somewhere of what thoughts we are allowed to think or express?

I'm being only somewhat facetious here, so don't get your knickers in a knot. Is it a bad thing to verbally wish Dick Cheney death? Or is it an allowable expression of thought and who decided this? I imagine that many of the leftward persuasion think this is fine, while others are deeply offended. Who decides which one of us goes to the re-education centers on this issue? Why should anyone have to go to be re-educated in the first place. I don't like what you say. You don't like what I say, yet one of us is forced to do penance for our thoughts.???

The back peddling from Ann Coulter's obnoxious remarks seems to be in an extreme "oh no don't let the pooky touch me" mode. If sensible people think that what she said was inappropriate and irrelevant and there is no "thought policing' going on, then why is there such a rush to condemn her in a group think type of way with formal letters. I don't like what she says and how she says it but instead of demanding a recantation or expect her to crawl on broken glass, I use the power at my fingertips and change the channel and don't buy her books.

Christofascist Catholic League's website Do you have a link to this. I want to see that title on their web page. :-)

Revenant said...

would you like to be a member of a party that has Anne Coulter as a mouthpiece?

No, but since no party actually *has* her as a mouthpiece that isn't a problem. If a Republican candidate actually hired Coulter that would be reason enough to vote against him.

Wade_Garrett said...

Madisonman - I'm the one who made those comments, and you're right -- I should have said "scrotum" instead of "testicle."

I think its good that Edwards has responded. If there's one thing the Democrats learned in the '04 election, it is that if you let an allegation of insult go unanswered,on the grounds that it is ridiculous and not worthy of a response, people will take your silence as an admission that it is true. Edwards should have come out swinging on this one.

Pogo said...

The Christofascist Godbag Catholic League

Doyle said...

Again with the employment issue. She "works" for right wing lunatics everywhere, and Republican candidates (esp. Romney) are her beneficiaries.

Mike said...

"Sorry, I thought you guys were all extinct. I need to hire a better research staff. Dinner on me as an apology?"

I accept. Where and what time?

Mike said...

Doyle said: "...again with the employment issue"

Well yeah, because it's the salient point.

Revenant said...

Again with the employment issue.

The "employment issue", as you so quaintly call it, is what makes the difference between *voluntarily* associating with someone (Edwards and Marcotte) and *involuntarily* being associated with someone (conservatives and Coulter). It is impossible to stop Coulter from calling herself a conservative and announcing her support for Republicans. It was entirely possible for Edwards to refrain from giving money to a woman he knew to be a man-hating bigot.

She "works" for right wing lunatics everywhere

The quotes around "works" are, of course, necessary because she DOESN'T work for them.

Republican candidates (esp. Romney) are her beneficiaries.

Oh, please. Coulter does nothing to benefit conservative candidates, as is amply demonstrated by the fact that she's managed to make an ambulance-chasing lawyer look sympathetic!

Naked Lunch said...

LoafingOaf-

I guess believing that ancient lost tribes of Israelites floated to America in wood barrels, who turned into Indians that built cities and fought epic battles on chariots in early N America, then receiving a visit from Christ Himself [who couldn't make a go of it in Palestine], and who's book was transcribed from golden plates buried into a hill in NY, qualifies you for high office more than not believing. Or for simply admitting its unknowable.

Revenant said...

Meanwhile, Mitt Romney - the favored candidate of the Christianist Right - recently stated that he believes only people of religious faith are fit for high office.

I'm not sure which candidate "Christianists" favor (since they don't actually exist), but Romney is not the favored candidate of the religious right, at least not yet. He's Mormon and was until recently pro-gay and pro-abortion. None of the major conservative religious groups have endorsed a candidate yet, and McCain is at least as likely to get those endorsements as Romney is.

That sounds like anti-atheist bigotry to me.

Maybe, but it is bigotry that the overwhelming majority of Americans agree with, which means it isn't going to hurt Romney in the polls.

Fen said...

qualifies you for high office more than not believing.

You don't really want to make religious belief a qualifier for office, remember?

Esp if your High Priest of Climate Change enters the race.

Jeremy said...

Edwards should have come out swinging on this one.

Edwards is a swinger?!

(Said as in "Mrs. Peacock is a man?!")

I know, this is no time for comedy.

Naked Lunch said...

You don't really want to make religious belief a qualifier for office, remember?

Mitt Romney disqualifies himself for being Mitt Romney for me. Career flip-flopping opportunist who would sell this country interests out just as he sold out the state that elected him for cheap political points.

Esp if your High Priest of Climate Change enters the race.

So that's why you guys are digging up his utility bills. Fits the pattern though.

Fen said...

Mitt Romney disqualifies himself for being Mitt Romney for me.

Fine. But you were trying to invoke a religious test for office. Backed off of that eh? Must be hard to manage all your shifting principles.

So that's why you guys are digging up his utility bills. Fits the pattern though.

Nope, wasn't us digging. Was your friendly local MSM news station. Channel 4 I think.

But keep playing your "pin the infidel" game. Its cute.

But go ahead and

Revenant said...

So that's why you guys are digging up his utility bills.

Nah, they're dug up for the same reason Larry Flynt dug up sex scandals on moralizing Republicans during the Clinton impeachment -- because there's nothing quite as satisfying as proving that a moralizing demagogue is a complete hypocrite.

Simon said...

I tend to agree with NL about Romney - I find his flip-flopping on abortion ("I agree with you today, isn't that what counts?" No! No, it isn't!) far less reassuring than Giuliani's federalism ("I disagree with you, always have, always will, but I agree with youy about who gets to decide").

As to religious tests - I have no problem with individuals judging candidates based on their religion. The Constitution precludes government-imposed de jure religious tests, but it doesn't prevent Amanda Marcotte qua a voter saying "I'm not voting for a Godbag Cathlofascist, period," and I tend to think it doesn't even prevent a President from saying "I will not consider as a candidate for office anyone who is a ___."

reality check said...

Yes, because having an affair while trying to impeach the President for one is the same as paying extra for clean energy in an attempt to jump start the clean energy industry.

francis said...

Ann Coulter "adulterizes" recognizably adoloscent behavior. Why shouldn't the marketplace of free, open and vigorous expressionism hold her duly accountable for this titilatingly malapropos remark?

hdhouse said...

she doesn't speak for the GOP? oh right.

ths has been front and center on all the rightwing radio for 2 days. Many (Rush, Sean, Savage) have been sympathetic to the beating she has been taking..but don't you see?

It is the reason she did it. It moved that skank center stage and made the issue Edwards' hair or his "pretty boy" look. She did the job assigned.

this is so much like bush in south carolina and the phone banks about mccain's black bastard kid. george didn't know anything about it. right. it is the same as the republican national committee runing those ads against harold ford in tennessee but his opponent "couldn't do a thing"...

this is right out of the lee atwater playbook and you guys know it. it stinks and there is no excuse. lies are no excuse.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

She did the job assigned

So that's why you guys are digging up his utility bills.


The paranoia of the left is constatnly amazing. Project much?

Patrick said...

"because having an affair while trying to impeach the President for one is the same as paying extra for clean energy in an attempt to jump start the clean energy industry."

But you forget those having affairs also tithed to churches and supported abstinence programs, thus giving them sexuality credits that resulted in a morality neutral footprint.

hdhouse said...

hi dustbunny...how is the state of denial? many electoral votes there?

Simon said...

reality check said...
"[H]aving an affair while trying to impeach the President for one..."

Clinton wasn't impeached for having an affair, he was impeached for perjury. See H. Res 611 (105th Cong.).

Simon said...

^ (Just as, by the way, Lewis Libby is on trial for perjury, not for the crime that the grand jury he allegedly perjured himself before was convened to investigate.)

Revenant said...

But you forget those having affairs also tithed to churches and supported abstinence programs, thus giving them sexuality credits that resulted in a morality neutral footprint.

Hah! I like that, that's very clever.

Revenant said...

ths has been front and center on all the rightwing radio for 2 days. Many (Rush, Sean, Savage) have been sympathetic to the beating she has been taking..but don't you see?

Limbaugh, Savage, and Hannity aren't paid Republican spokesmen either, so who cares if they support Coulter?

reality check said...

Yes, obstruction of justice to find out who leaked classified material, the identity of a key wmd covert agent who was working on the nature of iraqi and iran wmds and the aq kahn network is like lying about a blowjob.

Which is why most prosecutors agree that they expect people having affairs to lie about those affairs and don't consider perjury charges for that.

It's like you Simon, testifying in court that you aren't a virgin. It's perjury, but no one would charge you for it.

Fen said...

reality check: Yes, because having an affair while trying to impeach the President for one is the same as -

For starters, having an affair is not the same as molesting subordinate employees [Lewinksy], groping campaign volunteers [Wiley}, or denying promotion to employees who refuse to blow you [Jones].

But thanks for the look into your twisted pysche.


Reality Check: paying extra for clean energy in an attempt to jump start the clean energy industry

Gore pays extra to himself, his carbon offset purchases go to a company he founded - he's on the board and likely gets a paycheck. So at best, Gore is paying extra via the equivalent of purchasing stock in his own company. No wonder he goes around fear-mongering about carbon offsets, its his racket.

Joseph Hovsep said...

DBQ: Was her remark a nice thing to say? No. Is it even true? Who cares.

Me: And you bring up the issue of whether its true that John Edwards is a faggot? Is that even a question you can answer?

DBQ: I said, Who cares? I don't and I mean it.

The point is that "faggot" is a slur, not something that can be shown to be true or false. Coulter didn't say Edwards was gay. She said she couldn't discuss his candidacy without using the word faggot. Saying you don't care whether Edwards is a faggot makes as much sense as saying you don't have an opinion about whether HRC is a c**t or Obama a ni***r or Bush a Christofascist Godbag. Its a nasty epithet and I was drawing attention to the fact that you don't seem to differentiate between saying someone is gay or calling someone a faggot.

Fen said...

reality check: Yes, obstruction of justice to find out who leaked classified material

It was Armitage. It wasn't classified. And Libby had no idea of Plame's status, only that she recommended her husband.

Andf in this case, obstruction of justice = I misrembered who told me about Plame first. Which is not so bad when compared against all the I have no recollection of those events weasels. His was cooperating in good faith and confused the timeline of what were insignificant events.

the identity of a key wmd covert agent who was working on the nature of iraqi and iran wmds and the aq kahn network is like lying about a blowjob.

CIA already established that Plame was not covert. Damn you're dense.

As to Clinton's blowjobs, maybe if he had spent less time sodomizing interns while Al Queda plotted 9-11...

reality check said...

you're an idiot, he is not purchasing stock in his own company. there is a difference between a stock purchase and income.

you say libby didn't know and cooperated in good faith. That's for the jury to decide. My understanding is Fitzgerald says Libby was told NINE times of her status and "forgot" each time. (I could be wrong abot that.)

The facts are simple, Fitzgerald and Judge Walton agree she was covert. The CIA could not have filed on this if she wasn't covert. Sorry you lose. If she wasn't covert there would have been no case.

The closest she comes to not being covert is if Cheney is allowed to declassify that information all by himself and if he told Libby to leak it.

Isikoff confirms she was covert and working on Iran/Iraq/AQ Kahn.

Everything after that is just you honking on GWB's massive 2 incher.

Fen said...

Re Gore's offset scheme, at least it reveals he's not a wacko, just his followers.

Anyone who feels a need to offset their carbon footprint, please donate via paypal to fens_new_boat.com. I promise the money will go to planting trees. No really.

reality check said...

The affair with Lewinsky was with a consensual adult that initiated the affair.

You can try and prove anything you want about Wiley and Jones. They have failed all these years even with Coulter and Mellon Scaife trying to help them out.

It's 2007 and you refer to oral sex with its old term as sodomy? You're the twisted perverted one.

Fen said...

The facts are simple, Fitzgerald and Judge Walton agree she was covert...Isikoff confirms she was covert and working on Iran/Iraq/AQ Kahn

via Powerline:

4) The term “covert agent” means— (A) a present or retired officer or employee of an intelligence agency or a present or retired member of the Armed Forces assigned to duty with an intelligence agency—
(i) whose identity as such an officer, employee, or member is classified information, and

(ii) who is serving outside the United States or has within the last five years served outside the United States; or

(B) a United States citizen whose intelligence relationship to the United States is classified information, and—

(i) who resides and acts outside the United States as an agent of, or informant or source of operational assistance to, an intelligence agency, or

(ii) who is at the time of the disclosure acting as an agent of, or informant to, the foreign counterintelligence or foreign counterterrorism components of the Federal Bureau of Investigation; or

(C) an individual, other than a United States citizen, whose past or present intelligence relationship to the United States is classified information and who is a present or former agent of, or a present or former informant or source of operational assistance to, an intelligence agency.

/ends

Hey RC, you still waiting for Rove to be indicted in 24 business hours [as per TruthOut last spring]? No wonder you're frothed.

Fen said...

It's 2007 and you refer to oral sex with its old term as sodomy?

Get thee to a dictionary. ha.

Fen said...

/I'm going to start charging you for your education, rc:

sod·om·y /ˈsɒdəmi/

–noun

1. anal or oral copulation with a member of the opposite sex.

2. copulation with a member of the same sex.

3. bestiality (def. 4).

Revenant said...

obstruction of justice to find out who leaked classified material, the identity of a key wmd covert agent who was working on the nature of iraqi and iran wmds and the aq kahn network is like lying about a blowjob.

You're comparing what Libby was investigated for to what Clinton was actually charged with.

The equally (un)fair version, with the spin reversed, would be:

Forgetting a conversation on an unimportant topic from months before is just like committing rape, murder, and embezzlement

... which is what Libby was indicted for compared to what Clinton was investigated for.

reality check said...

via powerline? you can't be serious.

Fitzgerald, Walton, the CIA, Isikoff, NBC all say she was covert.

But you prefer listening to three extremist lawyers.

Education? Like I said, the old term for sodomy. Who the hell really calls it sodomy these days?

Not even Althouse would do that?

Only someone fantasizing about what it might be like someday to get a bit of oral sex, but who at the same time judges anyone that does would call it sodomy.

Powerline? Wrong on the Schiavo memo, wrong on the Haifa Street photographer, wrong on the Delay indictment, wrong on ronnie earle, wrong about abraham lincoln, wrong about iraq being less dangerous than california, wrong about John Dingell.

Powerline: right about Fen and the Althouse groupies being gullible and eager smear merchants.

reality check said...

I see, you're saying that Clinton committed rape, murder, and embezzlement but was only charged with lying to the grand jury.

You are saying Clinton is a murderer.

Are you like a Chinese agent?

Jeez Professor Althouse, Revenant is one of your more trusted groupies, and he thinks Clinton is a murderer.

Is that what you think Ann?

Be honest now.

reality check said...

You say he forgot a minor detail, Fitzgerald says he had nine conversations about this minor detail and then chose to blame it on the one person that he thought would never testify against him. Sadly, when that person did testify against him, that person said it was physically impossible.

I think the jury is deciding how minor that detail is, but I appreciate your babble.

Andy said...

The quickness of the certain people to downplay Coulter's hateful remarks is the reason she is still around making trouble for everyone. It is astonishing how many extremely thoughtful and intelligent commentators are unable to even muster up condemnation of her remark, instead using it as an excuse to dredge up femibloggergate and make themselves look persecuted. As Mr. Hovsep stated above, the point is not that she insulted Edwards but that she used "faggot" in a derogatory way at a very public conservative event while sharing the stage with presidential hopefuls. What is wrong with her? It's not funny. My own mother would have made me wash my mouth out with soap for making such a remark at the dinner table when I was growing up. It is absolutely no different from dropping the N-bomb while discussing Obama (which she may yet do).

It's also laughable to describe her as fringe. "Fringe" describes blog commentators, and maybe some bloggers. I wouldn't use it to describe Michael Moore or Ann Coulter. And frankly, the mainstream Democratic movement has been chilly towards Moore, but Coulter is still embraced by the right. CPAC is not a fringe group, they paid her money to speak at their event, and yet people here persist in saying that Coulter does not work for or speak for the conservative establishment. Open your eyes.

Revenant said...

Fitzgerald, Walton, the CIA, Isikoff, NBC all say she was covert.

It doesn't matter if she was covert. Outing covert operatives is not automatically illegal, which is why none of the people who've admitted to mentioning Plame's status to the press are being prosecuted for it.

I see, you're saying that Clinton committed rape, murder, and embezzlement but was only charged with lying to the grand jury.

Inasmuch as you're saying that Libby "leaked classified material, the identity of a key wmd covert agent who was working on the nature of iraqi and iran wmds and the aq kahn network" but is only charged with lying to the grand jury.

Fitzgerald says he had nine conversations about this minor detail and then chose to blame it on the one person that he thought would never testify against him.

Wow, you mean the *prosecutor* says the accused did something bad? Imagine that!

Simon said...

reality check said...
"Yes, obstruction of justice to find out who leaked classified material, the identity of a key wmd covert agent who was working on the nature of iraqi and iran wmds and the aq kahn network is like lying about a blowjob."

Actually, yes, it is when you say it "having taken an oath before a competent tribunal, officer, or person, in any case in which a law of the United States authorizes an oath to be administered," 18 U.S.C. § 1621. The federal perjury statute does not contain an exemption for false statements about marital infidelity.

George said...

...Mad Magazine...

Like Loatian guerillas fighting on the Plain of Jars.....

Revenant said...

And frankly, the mainstream Democratic movement has been chilly towards Moore

Heh! What monumental bullshit.

The premiere of "Fahrenheit 9/11" was openly attended by many Democratic Party leaders. Moore was also a welcome contributor to the Presidential campaign of the Clintons' favored candidate, and he was given a seat of honor next to President Carter at the 2004 Democratic National Convention.

If the Democratic Party was any warmer towards Michael Moore, Hillary Clinton would be cleaning his DNA off her favorite blue dress.

Naked Lunch said...


Esp if your High Priest of Climate Change enters the race


Curious what you think of this article . Worth a read. If true, how silly do you think the conservative movement will be remembered for by completely blowing off such monumental consequences, and were looking into Al Gore's electric bills instead. Kind of like Iraq?

Revenant said...

Curious what you think of this article.

Well, let's see:

(1): It repeats the myth that George Bush is a global warming denier, whereas in reality Bush acknowledged years ago that the Earth is warming, and that scientists think this is primarily due to human activity.

(2): It predicts massive flooding "as early as" 2005. No indication of what the "as late as" date is, but no sign of that flooding so far.

(3): It predicts that Kerry's global warming stance will help him in 2004. Say, whatever happened to Kerry, anyway?

Fen said...

reality check: via powerline? you can't be serious

Damn you're an idiot. Whatever fantasies you hold about Powerline are irrelevant. They are quoting law. Go look it up for yourself - here's the primary source via that Vast Right Wing Conspiracy, Cornell Law School.

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode50/usc_sec_50_00000426----000-.html


===

4) The term “covert agent” means—

(A) a present or retired officer or employee of an intelligence agency or a present or retired member of the Armed Forces assigned to duty with an intelligence agency—

(i) whose identity as such an officer, employee, or member is classified information, and

(ii) who is serving outside the United States or has within the last five years served outside the United States; or

(B) a United States citizen whose intelligence relationship to the United States is classified information, and—

(i) who resides and acts outside the United States as an agent of, or informant or source of operational assistance to, an intelligence agency, or

(ii) who is at the time of the disclosure acting as an agent of, or informant to, the foreign counterintelligence or foreign counterterrorism components of the Federal Bureau of Investigation; or

(C) an individual, other than a United States citizen, whose past or present intelligence relationship to the United States is classified information and who is a present or former agent of, or a present or former informant or source of operational assistance to, an intelligence agency.

Fen said...

Curious what you think of this article.

I think the article is bunk. I think the Guardian distorted and sensationalized the report. As do its authors:

A Pentagon-commissioned report by two Bay Area futurologists has sparked an international brouhaha over possible climate change disasters. But both the authors and military officials say the study has been largely misconstrued by the media and environmentalists

...All that Schwartz and Randall did was to investigate the "worst-case" possible events, those that are highly unlikely to happen but, if they did happen, would be catastrophic, especially in their impacts on U.S. military operations -- "low probability, high impact" events, as they are known in the futurological world


http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2004/02/25/MNG0O57R4R1.DTL

If true, how silly do you think the conservative movement will be remembered for by completely blowing off such monumental consequences

I could say the same about any religion. "If there is a God, how silly would it be for you to blow off your eternal soul b/c of the actions of a few imperfect men".

Fen said...

completely blowing off such monumental consequences, and were looking into Al Gore's electric bills instead

BTW, Al Gore's electric bills do not disprove global warming / climate change. All they prove is that The Left Doesn't Really Believe In The Things They Lecture Us About

[yah, its still too long for a book title. Just as well. Editors run when they see me approach. sigh]

TMink said...

RC wrote: "The affair with Lewinsky was with a consensual adult that initiated the affair."

RC, now you know that if President Clinton had been a Republican you would be screaming about power imbalance and boss/employee relationships being equivalent to rape. You know you would and we know you would.

Now you will mumble something about her not being an employee and he was not her direct supervisor and maybe even nobody died when Clinton lied.

Blah blah blah. Until you take a coherent, consistent stance on facts and issues instead of writing transparent partisan hackery nobody will take you seriously.

Again, you can do much better than that post, I have read them.

Trey

Fen said...

Reality Check: The affair with Lewinsky was with a consensual adult that initiated the affair.

Right. The affair was consensual, and while highly unethical on Clinton's part [taking advantage of surbodinate employee] it was not illegal by itself.

Where Clinton got into trouble was hiding the affair from the Paula Jones team. Stay with me here RC - under sexual harassment law lobbied by NOW and signed by Clinton,[1994 Crime Bill] the alleged victim of sexual harassment/discrimination has a right to any evidence that establishes a pattern of sexual predatory behavior on the part of the defendent. Thats the language the feminist movement lobbied for.

Jones was suing for discrimination. She had a right to any information on Clinton involving sexual relations with subordinates, in this case to determine if Clinton had coerced Lewinksy. If Clinton/Lewinsky had come foward and said "yes we had relations but it was consenual" they would have been clear [legally]. Instead, Clinton lied about its existence - commiting perjury, subornation of perjury, and obstruction of justice. He violated Jones's civil rights. Thats why he remains Impeached.

Gahrie said...

Just for the record, Lewinsky's consent means nothing. The affair between Clinton and her was a de facto violation of the sexual harassment law that Clinton signed. The law has specific provisions that deny the defense of consent in workplace sexual affairs.

Fen said...

Thanks for the correction