Just tell me how could I not want (or try) to dislike Ann Coulter. There are just so many reasons to hate her (and to want to boycott her) or simply to gang up on her and break her spirits. Until she can no longer say or do the things she's been doing - ridiculing and humiliating others. This is a woman who loves to be hated. She feeds off anger like Cancer feeds off sugar.
According to a report recently at the American Conservative Union Political Action Conference, she said, “I was going to have a few comments on the other Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards, but it turns out you have to go into rehab if you use the word ‘faggot,’ so I — so kind of an impasse, can’t really talk about Edwards.”
She was probably pointing to actor Isaiah Washington, who referred to Grey’s Anatomy co-star (and gay man) T.R. Knight as a faggot. But Washington, at least, apologized to the community and met with gay leaders. He checked into rehab because—well, because that’s what stars seem to do when they commit big social gaffes.
Sure, you’re a right-wing pitbull who has made her name by attacking anything and everyone to the left of fascist. And yes, you once said Al Gore was a fag, though because you did it in an almost gentle half-insider kind of way, it came across as a fag hag’s idea of a joke instead of a venomous attack like this one. And indeed, your crowd of young admirers cheered you on as you said it, laughing, as if they had never heard anything as funny as a serious candidate for president, a former United States Senator, being deeply insulted by a cheap throwaway line.
But—Ann Coulter. Really. Is this what you want the future of politics to look like? The future of democracy? The future of America? Do you really want serious debate about a very serious issue—the issue of who will be elected to lead our country—do you really want this debate to be hijacked by a round of playground bully-type name calling?
It seems to me, Ann Coulter, that someone with your brains and quick wit could certainly do better than saying, “Nyah, nyah, your guy’s a faggot!” to a national audience.
But maybe Ann Coulter can’t do better, not any more. Maybe she’s bought her own hype. Maybe she thinks she is the woman she plays on TV. Maybe she thinks its enough, now, to be outrageous instead of outrageously smart, or outrageously pointed.
Ann Coulter, after all, is theater. She’s not even a real person. She’s like those World Wrestling Federation guys in tight shiny, skin-revealing outfits who pretend to be fierce and powerful but really have to plan out all their moves beforehand so they won’t get hurt.
Maybe she felt that her influence is fading, that the Republican party is slowly but surely pulling away from the social conservatives who are weighing them down until they are almost drowned.
Her influence is fading. There is no question now. Her influence faded right before our eyes as, one by one, Republicans lined up to denounce her. The Republican presidential candidates denounced her. The Christian Defense Coalition denounced her. Even the Right half of the blogosphere, led by RedState, called for an old fashioned shunning, to let Ann Coulter know she was no longer one of their own.
In fact, the Red State recall of Ann Coulter has been amazing. They have made it clear that this sort of name-calling has no place in our national debate.
Good for them.
And good for us.
Because we gained something from Ann Coulter’s gaffe. We saw Republicans and conservatives of all stripes come forward to say that calling someone a faggot is wrong. We saw them realize that in fact they can’t say anything they want about marginalized people. That there is a line and they don’t want to cross it. We witnessed our Red State brethren take a step back from the precipice of Coulter-Hannity-Limbaugh insanity, and instead say, “Wait a minute. This is not what we want. This is not who we are.”
Oh, how funny!
All Coulter did was initiate the regular "firestorm of outrage" that keeps her in the media spotlight for another six months and sells another couple of million books.
And the Democrats and Republicans who are condeming her "hateful, insensitive language" will go right back to passing anti-gay laws and muttering about "faggots" in private -- while reaping the phoney "tolerance" that comes from a breathless, outraged condemnation of Coulter's stupidity in public.
It's hilariously scripted and substance-free, and represents neither a "return to tolerance" for Republicans nor a breakthrough for gay people.
Maybe the language of conservatives has become more genteel of late. I don't know. I do know that not too long ago tossing around terms like "fag", "pervert", "girlie boys", etc. was a standard conservative way of advertising one's worthiness of the Group - kind of like ants touching one another's antennae. At any rate , avoiding juvenile and inflammatory language says nothing about one's intentions. I suspect that conservatives are just as determined as ever to re-marginalize gay people; it remains the fervid dream of their yahoo base, after all, but will soon learn to be more circumspect in their language in this post- Senator Macaca age.
After reading through all the Republican blog posts and comments and the CPAC crowds' reaction, it's very apparent that these conservatives were just fine with using 'faggot' but only went into damage control mode when presented with the prospect of losing independent/moderate support.
It's obvious that the Republican base is virulently homophobic and only makes symbolic attempts to appear otherwise when faced with the prospect of losing power. Principles be damned, it's all about holding onto power. Seems rather familiar doesn't it?
Coulter's demogogery is nothing new. She's been spewing it for seventeen years, and conservatives lap it up like the "red meat" bait it's meant to serve. It's made her millions of dollar and conservative fans.
The "difference" this time is that the audience's reaction (first gasps, then wild applause) demonstrated to the nation just how viscerally toxic her demagagery appeals to CPAC and the Religious Right, the very people destroying our nation as we speak. Watching her wildly-accepted adulation by these folk awakened the rest of the nation to the fears we all should fear when demagogues have gone over the edge. Coulter is always over the edge, but now we know conservatives esteem this nonsense, relish it, and revel in it.
Seeing the blonde, anorexic on amphetamines spew her demagogery sells big-time, and maybe that isn't good for democracy, freedom, equality, justice, peace, and all those values our Founders thought so wildly delerious. Coulter's delerium was the proper tonic delivered in the appropriate moment, and the audience's reaction sealed the fate. The nation has awakened again from its slumbers and did not like what it saw. Finally!
Has anyone here or in the mainstream media noted that no spokesmen at Concerned Women for America or the Family Resarch Council issued a press release distancing themselves from, let alone condemning, Ann Coulter for her remarks?
One would think the predominantly liberal news reporters would play "gotcha" and inform their viewers that the leading spokemen for these organizations really do not believe in the "love the sinner, hate the sin" crap that they spew.
Then again, almost no one called FRC President Tony Perkins to task after he used the Mark Foley sexual predator scandal to slander the entire gay community. Where was Chris Matthews when MSNBC commentator Pat Buchanan called Mark Foley a real "flamer" and why didn't any notable journalists question the predominantly evangelical theoconservative spokesmen when they dismiss the claims that we are born gay (one sexual orientation)but then accuse us of being pedophiles (which they invoke as a sexual orienation that inadvertently might be protected by any proposed sexual orienation inclusive nondiscrimination laws)?
The others, most especially Ann Coulter , the CPAC attendees who applauded, and the cluless journalists we rely upon for fair and accurate balance, should wallow in shame.
One would think the predominantly liberal news reporters would play "gotcha" and inform their viewers that the leading spokemen for these organizations really do not believe in the "love the sinner, hate the sin" crap that they spew.
Except that many liberals are homophobic too. Just go to any Democratic Party event and start talking, unapologetically, about your right to marry -- and watch the "tolerant" folks' backs get up as they accuse you of being a "single issue extremist" who "is talking about something that doesn't matter."
Of course, their obsessions with forcing socialized medicine on everyone -- including those who don't want it -- isn't defined in nearly the same terms.
How about the issues on Same-sex Marriages, Medical Marijuana & Needle Exchange, Low-Cost AIDS Drugs, Equal Rights, Ending anti-gay bias in the Military, Abortion rights, Civil Liberties, Universal Health Care, Election Reform and Instant Runoff Voting, Nonviolent Solutions to Conflic?
Not that either the Greens or the Libertarians have any chance of getting elected with the current election laws. If we want these minor parties to have a voice, we need to lobby the mainstream media to include them in political debates, especially the presidential debates. Because if Americans don't see it on TV, it's not for real. If we want the minor parties to have a chance, we should lobby to institute instant runoff ballots. Check out this site for an explanation:
I'm glad Coulter said what she did, I wish more of the 30% would speak in plain language. Because when they speak in euphemisms and code words they mislead some people into seeing them as legitimate. I'd rather hear bigotry expressed aloud instead of cloaked behind "defense of marriage" rhetoric, I'd rather hear open racism than allusions to "porous borders." I'd rather these people stated their repellant views in plain language to enable their easy identification as idiots so the rest of us can shun them and get on with rational discussion.
I don't think those who lined up to distance themselves from the drunken sorority slut were repudiating her bigotry, only her stating it so plainly. The last thing they want to do is alienate those nasty bigots who comprise their base. You think?
According to a report recently at the American Conservative Union Political Action Conference, she said, “I was going to have a few comments on the other Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards, but it turns out you have to go into rehab if you use the word ‘faggot,’ so I — so kind of an impasse, can’t really talk about Edwards.”
She was probably pointing to actor Isaiah Washington, who referred to Grey’s Anatomy co-star (and gay man) T.R. Knight as a faggot. But Washington, at least, apologized to the community and met with gay leaders. He checked into rehab because—well, because that’s what stars seem to do when they commit big social gaffes.
Sure, you’re a right-wing pitbull who has made her name by attacking anything and everyone to the left of fascist. And yes, you once said Al Gore was a fag, though because you did it in an almost gentle half-insider kind of way, it came across as a fag hag’s idea of a joke instead of a venomous attack like this one. And indeed, your crowd of young admirers cheered you on as you said it, laughing, as if they had never heard anything as funny as a serious candidate for president, a former United States Senator, being deeply insulted by a cheap throwaway line.
But—Ann Coulter. Really. Is this what you want the future of politics to look like? The future of democracy? The future of America? Do you really want serious debate about a very serious issue—the issue of who will be elected to lead our country—do you really want this debate to be hijacked by a round of playground bully-type name calling?
It seems to me, Ann Coulter, that someone with your brains and quick wit could certainly do better than saying, “Nyah, nyah, your guy’s a faggot!” to a national audience.
But maybe Ann Coulter can’t do better, not any more. Maybe she’s bought her own hype. Maybe she thinks she is the woman she plays on TV. Maybe she thinks its enough, now, to be outrageous instead of outrageously smart, or outrageously pointed.
Ann Coulter, after all, is theater. She’s not even a real person. She’s like those World Wrestling Federation guys in tight shiny, skin-revealing outfits who pretend to be fierce and powerful but really have to plan out all their moves beforehand so they won’t get hurt.
Maybe she felt that her influence is fading, that the Republican party is slowly but surely pulling away from the social conservatives who are weighing them down until they are almost drowned.
Her influence is fading. There is no question now. Her influence faded right before our eyes as, one by one, Republicans lined up to denounce her. The Republican presidential candidates denounced her. The Christian Defense Coalition denounced her. Even the Right half of the blogosphere, led by RedState, called for an old fashioned shunning, to let Ann Coulter know she was no longer one of their own.
In fact, the Red State recall of Ann Coulter has been amazing. They have made it clear that this sort of name-calling has no place in our national debate.
Good for them.
And good for us.
Because we gained something from Ann Coulter’s gaffe. We saw Republicans and conservatives of all stripes come forward to say that calling someone a faggot is wrong. We saw them realize that in fact they can’t say anything they want about marginalized people. That there is a line and they don’t want to cross it. We witnessed our Red State brethren take a step back from the precipice of Coulter-Hannity-Limbaugh insanity, and instead say, “Wait a minute. This is not what we want. This is not who we are.”
Oh, how funny!
All Coulter did was initiate the regular "firestorm of outrage" that keeps her in the media spotlight for another six months and sells another couple of million books.
And the Democrats and Republicans who are condeming her "hateful, insensitive language" will go right back to passing anti-gay laws and muttering about "faggots" in private -- while reaping the phoney "tolerance" that comes from a breathless, outraged condemnation of Coulter's stupidity in public.
It's hilariously scripted and substance-free, and represents neither a "return to tolerance" for Republicans nor a breakthrough for gay people.
Maybe the language of conservatives has become more genteel of late. I don't know. I do know that not too long ago tossing around terms like "fag", "pervert", "girlie boys", etc. was a standard conservative way of advertising one's worthiness of the Group - kind of like ants touching one another's antennae. At any rate , avoiding juvenile and inflammatory language says nothing about one's intentions. I suspect that conservatives are just as determined as ever to re-marginalize gay people; it remains the fervid dream of their yahoo base, after all, but will soon learn to be more circumspect in their language in this post- Senator Macaca age.
After reading through all the Republican blog posts and comments and the CPAC crowds' reaction, it's very apparent that these conservatives were just fine with using 'faggot' but only went into damage control mode when presented with the prospect of losing independent/moderate support.
It's obvious that the Republican base is virulently homophobic and only makes symbolic attempts to appear otherwise when faced with the prospect of losing power. Principles be damned, it's all about holding onto power. Seems rather familiar doesn't it?
Coulter's demogogery is nothing new. She's been spewing it for seventeen years, and conservatives lap it up like the "red meat" bait it's meant to serve. It's made her millions of dollar and conservative fans.
The "difference" this time is that the audience's reaction (first gasps, then wild applause) demonstrated to the nation just how viscerally toxic her demagagery appeals to CPAC and the Religious Right, the very people destroying our nation as we speak. Watching her wildly-accepted adulation by these folk awakened the rest of the nation to the fears we all should fear when demagogues have gone over the edge. Coulter is always over the edge, but now we know conservatives esteem this nonsense, relish it, and revel in it.
Seeing the blonde, anorexic on amphetamines spew her demagogery sells big-time, and maybe that isn't good for democracy, freedom, equality, justice, peace, and all those values our Founders thought so wildly delerious. Coulter's delerium was the proper tonic delivered in the appropriate moment, and the audience's reaction sealed the fate. The nation has awakened again from its slumbers and did not like what it saw. Finally!
Has anyone here or in the mainstream media noted that no spokesmen at Concerned Women for America or the Family Resarch Council issued a press release distancing themselves from, let alone condemning, Ann Coulter for her remarks?
One would think the predominantly liberal news reporters would play "gotcha" and inform their viewers that the leading spokemen for these organizations really do not believe in the "love the sinner, hate the sin" crap that they spew.
Then again, almost no one called FRC President Tony Perkins to task after he used the Mark Foley sexual predator scandal to slander the entire gay community. Where was Chris Matthews when MSNBC commentator Pat Buchanan called Mark Foley a real "flamer" and why didn't any notable journalists question the predominantly evangelical theoconservative spokesmen when they dismiss the claims that we are born gay (one sexual orientation)but then accuse us of being pedophiles (which they invoke as a sexual orienation that inadvertently might be protected by any proposed sexual orienation inclusive nondiscrimination laws)?
The others, most especially Ann Coulter , the CPAC attendees who applauded, and the cluless journalists we rely upon for fair and accurate balance, should wallow in shame.
One would think the predominantly liberal news reporters would play "gotcha" and inform their viewers that the leading spokemen for these organizations really do not believe in the "love the sinner, hate the sin" crap that they spew.
Except that many liberals are homophobic too. Just go to any Democratic Party event and start talking, unapologetically, about your right to marry -- and watch the "tolerant" folks' backs get up as they accuse you of being a "single issue extremist" who "is talking about something that doesn't matter."
Of course, their obsessions with forcing socialized medicine on everyone -- including those who don't want it -- isn't defined in nearly the same terms.
How about the issues on Same-sex Marriages, Medical Marijuana & Needle Exchange, Low-Cost AIDS Drugs, Equal Rights, Ending anti-gay bias in the Military, Abortion rights, Civil Liberties, Universal Health Care, Election Reform and Instant Runoff Voting, Nonviolent Solutions to Conflic?
Not that either the Greens or the Libertarians have any chance of getting elected with the current election laws. If we want these minor parties to have a voice, we need to lobby the mainstream media to include them in political debates, especially the presidential debates. Because if Americans don't see it on TV, it's not for real. If we want the minor parties to have a chance, we should lobby to institute instant runoff ballots. Check out this site for an explanation:
I'm glad Coulter said what she did, I wish more of the 30% would speak in plain language. Because when they speak in euphemisms and code words they mislead some people into seeing them as legitimate. I'd rather hear bigotry expressed aloud instead of cloaked behind "defense of marriage" rhetoric, I'd rather hear open racism than allusions to "porous borders." I'd rather these people stated their repellant views in plain language to enable their easy identification as idiots so the rest of us can shun them and get on with rational discussion.
I don't think those who lined up to distance themselves from the drunken sorority slut were repudiating her bigotry, only her stating it so plainly. The last thing they want to do is alienate those nasty bigots who comprise their base. You think?