Outraged Blogosphere Condemns Coulter (Yet Again)
March 3rd, 2007 at 9:55 pm by Preston Taylor HolmesThe very serious bloggers of the conservative blogosphere are climbing over each other to get as far away from Ann Coulter as possible. As they do so, they are forced to climb over the very serious members of the leftardosphere rushing towards her, yelling, “look at all the hate!”
Meanwhile, spineless politicians (what other kind is there?) from both major parties rush to condemn her comments…
Coulter, who was addressing the Conservative Political Action Conference in Washington, D.C., 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.”
Personally, I thought it was pretty damn funny, as Ann usually is. Oh, I could feign outrage like the rest of the respectable blogosphere, but why bother? I mean, she’s right, really. The jab wasn’t that Edwards is a homosexual, but that he’s a preening, feminized, liberal girly-man who probably spends more time in front of the mirror than most coked-out anorexic fashion models. It’s called nuance. I learned that word from Edwards’ former running-away-mate.
And how much do we really know about Edwards, other than that he’s made millions upon millions chasing ambulances, hoodwinking juries and pretending to channel the spirits of dead children to line his bank account with even more blood money?
We really have no idea if he enjoys hot man-on-man action. We have no evidence of that, and I don’t believe Ann suggested that we do. I mean, does he bounce from glory-hole to glory-hole in the Carolinas practicing his Oreck imitation? We simply don’t know. Does his old lady strap it on and give him the business? We just don’t know. If so, it doesn’t say anything about it on his official Second World campaign site. And besides, that wouldn’t make him gay, just adventurous.
So, why the indignation and absurd letter writing campaigns? Is it so emotionally painful to share the same political views with someone with such a twisted and entertaining sense of humor?
Don’t expect me to run away from Ann. In fact, if I could talk her into it, I’d cram my tongue so far down her throat, it would show up at a bus station in Pittsburgh with a suitcase, a ticket stub and a Pirates hat. I still support Ann Coulter – she’s the Jerry Lawler of conservative politics and I love it when she pulls the strap down and comes off the top rope. The rest of you faggots can pound sand.
Besides, I’ve already purchased $200 worth of faggot offsets because it looks like that may be the only appropriate term to describe the roster of 2008 presidential candidates from both sides of the aisle – except for that one Marxist dyke – what’s her name again?
March 3rd, 2007 at 10:14 pm
Liberal Bigots Feign Outrage…
A woman known for making provocative statements makes a provocative statement and the feigned indignation follows….
March 3rd, 2007 at 10:18 pm
“except for that one Marxist dyke – what’s her name again?”
You talking about The Pantsuit?
March 3rd, 2007 at 10:19 pm
And how much do we really know about Edwards…
That he made his first million sucking on the barbed cock of Satan. That’s what Ann was referring too, I’m sure of it.
March 3rd, 2007 at 10:21 pm
In fact, if I could talk her into it, I’d cram my tongue so far down her throat, it would show up at a bus station in Pittsburgh with a suitcase, a ticket stub and a Pirates hat.
I only wish this piece was about me. I guess I’ll start being jealous of Coulter starting, well…now.
March 3rd, 2007 at 10:22 pm
WELL, Phin, I was trying to be a gentleman about it, but you have to drag us all into the gutter. For shame!
And yes, Jammie, I think that’s the one.
March 3rd, 2007 at 10:26 pm
Oh please. This controversy is ridiculous. The Leftards still regularly call Bush ‘Bushitler’ or McChimpy, etc. And they’re mad that some girl who isn’t even in office is saying something bad about somebody she disagrees with? By the way, aren’t the Left supposed to the guardians of the First Amendament?
March 3rd, 2007 at 10:35 pm
I like your style, Preston. Have you linked at my site. Will be a regular visitor.
March 3rd, 2007 at 10:55 pm
That Ann Coulter is a $@%&ing bitch who only knows how to spew hate and vitriol.
If her vagina got as much action as mine, perhaps that c%&# could avoid using such derogatory terms as “faggot” and “ragheads”.
Her kind of rhetoric has no $@%&ing place in political discourse. It should be reserved for criticisms of faith or morality.
John Edwards has a solid record of never associating himself with such %$#&wads. And my vagina can personally attest that he is no “faggot.”
Shame on you, Ann.
March 3rd, 2007 at 11:01 pm
RTG, you always have the proper perspective. And thanks, Jammie, I’ll return the favor. And Amanda, I thought you had a book deal and a gig at MSNBC, what are you still doing hanging around here?
March 3rd, 2007 at 11:14 pm
Preston,
It’s $&%#ing boring over there. Keith is impotent, and Chris just slobbers all over me. The only one who is halfway decent in the sack is Scarborough, but he has shit for brains.
March 3rd, 2007 at 11:42 pm
But, but… I *am* a faggot!!
March 4th, 2007 at 12:09 am
A Thousand Words And All That…
stein hoist: Boazo at the lovely and talented SondraK’s. Related…….
March 4th, 2007 at 4:33 am
Newt Gingrich is popular but isn’t a candidate yet…
Newt Gingrich, who isn’t a presidential candidate yet ranks third among Republicans in most polls, g…
March 4th, 2007 at 7:51 am
Notice how so many on the right are criticizing Ann for what she said and the fact that she did so at CPAC in an effort to further her own career and maintain her notoriety when she should have been defending conservative principles.
What baboons!
OF COURSE, she is after her own best interests…..just like CPAC was when they invited HER in order to give THEMSELVES credibility.
One hand washes the other.
I love Ann!
As for “I’d cram my tongue so far down her throat, it would show up at a bus station in Pittsburgh with a suitcase, a ticket stub and a Pirates hat.”….I couldn’t have said it better except I’d change Pittsburgh to Spring Hill, FL and Pirates hat to Yankees cap.
March 4th, 2007 at 7:53 am
This is the same shit that happened with that Fox comedy show. They evidently think you have to be doing a stand-up routine on Bob Newhart or they have to call you out for potty mouth.
And this is the problem with Republican pols. Since most of them are either practicing Christians or XINOs, they feel like they have to be condemning everybody all the time.
If this is the worst to come out of CPAC, I don’t think they have the will to win. The McCains, the Romneys, the Giulianis – I am not voting for these people.
For this next election, the preponderance of my bloggertory betters need to have more transparency about who is placing ads on their websites and with whom they are aligned because I’ve quit reading quite a few of them already for shamelessly shilling mediocre candidates for no good reason.
Great piece, PTH. Let the delinking begin.
March 4th, 2007 at 9:02 am
Ann is a “Virtual Shock Jock” (whatever that means).
The only reason I don’t approve of her antics is that base, stupid comments are the exclusive property of the TBoggs and Marcottes of this world.
I’ll turn in my gun and badge if you want boss.
March 4th, 2007 at 9:08 am
No, no, Cranky. Here at the buffet, we have an actual big tent. There is room for divergent viewpoints. This isn’t Dean’s World. But as soon as you start supporting Obama, you’re gone, Goredon.
March 4th, 2007 at 9:22 am
Well like Ben Franklin used to say, “I may not agree with what you say, but I’ll defend to the death your right to go gaga for Ann.
March 4th, 2007 at 11:14 am
What Ann ought to do is come out and offer a correction.
Sorry folks, I meant to call him a whore and you can see further proof of his willingness to get screwed for cash on his website.
March 4th, 2007 at 11:26 am
No one should get outraged about what happens to Ann. She eats this kind of controversy for breakfast. Hmmm. Maybe that’s why she’s so thin. (That and the chain smoking.)
Imagine being able to stir people up the way she does. She can yell “faggot” in a crowded theater and everybody starts having a cardiac infarction, on both sides of the aisle.
She’s loving this.
March 4th, 2007 at 11:29 am
Just to clarify, when I said “No one should get outraged about what happens to Ann.”…I meant in the court of popular opinion, not in regards to threats or assault…or anyone sticking their tongue down her throat or anything.
March 4th, 2007 at 11:56 am
I think Ann Coulter was out of line with the “faggot” comment…and it was stupid of her to say that. As smart as she is, she could have made the same allusion that Edwards strikes her as effiminate without using that trigger word. And it wouldn’t have been news.
I will still continue to read Ann’s stuff…because it’s brilliant. But I think she could use a little training by Michelle Malkin…a woman who can make her point and piss off liberals without dropping to their level.
March 4th, 2007 at 12:18 pm
Look, it was a badly-timed ripoff of the obsolete Gray’s Anatomy scandal (pre-Anna Nichole, hence prehistoric) told at the wrong venue, that a professional pundit like Coulter should have know would be wilfully misconstrued. Coulter was determined to say something that would get her quoted and she did it at CPAC’s expense.
March 4th, 2007 at 12:41 pm
She should just claim that it was a “botched joke.”:twisted:
March 4th, 2007 at 2:10 pm
Thank you! I’m so tired of some bloggers going all “Andy Sullivan” over this. I don’t need Michelle Malkin or her employee, Bryan, decrying the pronouncements of Ms. Coulter when they fail (or refuse) to consider the context of her remarks.
I guess for those of use who support Coulter, it’s off to rehab for 2 or 3 days.
March 4th, 2007 at 2:14 pm
I can’t believe that the Insufferable Pricks party has become more insufferable than me
. There is absolutely no opportunity to be funny if you say “faggot”, “nigger”, “raghead”, “chink” or “c*nt” in your joke. These words are off limits to anyone non-anonymous.
She screwed up. It’s kind of a big deal, but I love Ann and am certainly willing to forgive it. I’m less willing to forgive PTH for supporting it! WTF dude?
March 4th, 2007 at 3:00 pm
Okay, Kevin, if you need to leave the party feel free. But you’re dead wrong. Humor is in the eye/ear of the beholder and who are you to decide what words are allowed and whether or not they’re funny? Tell that to Chris Rock (n*gger), Scott Thompson (f*ggot), Phil Hendrie (r*aghead), Rosie O’Donnell (ch*nk). Okay, scratch that last one, but surely you see my point. If not, I’ll accept your resignation from the party. And starred all those words so that I wouldn’t offend you, Kevin.
March 4th, 2007 at 3:15 pm
Kevin,
I am sure Preston will respond on his own…and I agree with you in spirit on Ann’s poor choice of words.
But you said something that bothers me…that certain words are “off-limits”. Who sets these standards of words being “off-limits”? And is your list of “off-limits” words contained to the ones you listed? Who draws the line and where is it?
Just musing…
March 4th, 2007 at 3:19 pm
And Preston,
As long as y’all will have me and as long as the IPP holds firm on its stance on chickweed, consider me a faithful member of the party.
March 4th, 2007 at 3:26 pm
I don’t want this to turn into a pile-on-Kevin thread, but the politically-correct tone of his pronouncement of what is allowed and what is not allowed goes against everything the IPP stands for. Oh well, can’t please everyone.
(Thank God, or there would be no one to intentionally piss off)
March 4th, 2007 at 4:43 pm
Just an observation. If I was sitting alongside my sweetie and we were watching John Edwards on the TV, and he said “I don’t know if you want to put me in rehab for this, but that guy’s just faggoty.” I would laugh, punch him in the shoulder and say “That’s not a nice word.” Then I’d get up and serve him a beer, not divorce papers.
I’d add that it wouldn’t be wise for him to say those things in public. (I do this all the time BTW. We don’t get out much) But if my sweetie chooses to disregard my desires, and go off in public like Michael Savage at an Elton John concert, he would have his desires disregarded for a while.
She should be free to say what she wants. People should be free to get up and leave if they choose.
March 4th, 2007 at 4:46 pm
Kevin,
Just curious and not meaning to pile on but why did you “*” the word “cunt” but none of the others?
Does somehow putting a “*” in it make it less offensive or what? It’s like people saying “goldang” or “shoot’” when you know in their hearts they are thinking “goddam” or “shit.”
They should just say it. We know it’s what they mean.
OK, I am off to “language” and “thought” rehab.
March 4th, 2007 at 5:29 pm
They CPACKers proclaim how she’s their main draw yet…
March 4th, 2007 at 5:29 pm
… The Very Serious Bloggers…
I’m so stealing that!
March 4th, 2007 at 7:00 pm
SondraK, you can steal whatever you want from us and we won’t even chase you down in the parking lot.
March 5th, 2007 at 1:47 am
Ouch. You pricks are insufferable!
The first two can get away with it, because they are what those words mean. The second two could not and did not get away with it. So I guess I should have said, “These words are off limits to non-anonymous or non-practicing participants.” Ty for starring out offensive words.
Billy, damned good question. I have no idea how words become off limits, but do you agree that some are?
“Just curious and not meaning to pile on but why did you “*” the word “c*nt” but none of the others?”
P-whipped. I said that word in front of the wife once… Once! It’s not worth the risk to even type it.
I’m not asking you guys to learn Newspeak or anything. Say what you want. But Ann (kinda) calling someone a faggot in jest damages the rest of her message, imo. Endorsing her saying such a thing damages our message as well. She’s brilliant, but sometimes she goofs up. If we don’t call her on it, she’ll goof up more often. I hate to see that, because it makes it much more difficult to defend her (mostly brilliant) positions.
Just like with Marcotte, these types of statements make people sound like bigoted fools. Ann just gave the bad guys one more piece of ammo to say things like, “Marcotte is no worse than Coulter!” or any number of “dems are no worse than repubs” arguments. She did the conservative movement no favors by saying what she did, and may have even hurt it a tiny bit. That’s the main reason I’m booing the comment.
March 5th, 2007 at 10:21 am
I beleive the main problem that those on the left have with Coulter’s statement is that it was not nuanced enough.
What she should have said is that she is against the way the anal sex has been handled, but that she still supports the actual faggots.
March 5th, 2007 at 11:00 am
I don’t recall Ann being a politician or on the dole of any politician. She can say what she wants, and I fully expect that she will.
If we don’t have people like Ann out there, who is going to say these things for us? We are ALL thinking it. She just has the b*lls to say it (sorry, I “*” balls cause I’m not a guy, therefore staying in line with Kevin’s PC verbage here).
This reminds me of the South Park episode where anyone who said “fag” was bleeped. Except for Mr. Garrison, because he was in fact, a homosexual.
March 5th, 2007 at 11:09 am
Kevin,
I agree that there are words I will not say…they are “off-limits” to me and I would find them offensive if someone else used them. I would argue that Amanda Marcotte is WAY more offensive than Ann Coulter.
Yet I would not declare any words “off-limits” to Mz. Marcotte or her vagina.
Ann Coulter left her common sense filter back in the hotel room, no doubt. Since I wasn’t at CPAC, I may never hear about the rest of her speech…which I understand was witty and poignant. She should have known that using such a slur would be all the media would talk about.
Of course, maybe that’s what she intended.
March 5th, 2007 at 12:26 pm
“sorry, I “*” balls cause I’m not a guy, therefore staying in line with Kevin’s PC verbage here”
But dsmith, you are anonymous, not a prominent pundit for the conservative movement. Didn’t you read either of the two times I made my pc position clear on that subject? Star out balls if you want, but don’t blame me for you doing it.
March 5th, 2007 at 2:57 pm
[...] SixMeat Buffet: Personally, I thought it was pretty damn funny, as Ann usually is. Oh, I could feign outrage like the rest of the respectable blogosphere, but why bother? I mean, she’s right, really. The jab wasn’t that Edwards is a homosexual, but that he’s a preening, feminized, liberal girly-man who probably spends more time in front of the mirror than most coked-out anorexic fashion models. It’s called nuance. I learned that word from Edwards’ former running-away-mate. [...]
March 5th, 2007 at 3:41 pm
Kevin, honey, it was a bad bad joke. Sorry. I was merely making a point.
Ann Coulter is not an elected official. She is not paid by/for any campaign. She’s a pundit. Same as Bill Maher, Maureen Dowd, TED RALL, et al. Have you read Bill Maher? Have you read Ted Rall? They spit out teh hate (hate, not just pejoratives). No one on the left condemns them. We should all be free to say what we want; the only problem is with accountability. You hold a politician accountable. You hold someone being PAID by a politician accountable. You hold Priests and Rabbis and Imams accountable. But a pundit? I just find that silly. Yet you obviously have a higher standard than I do. And that’s okay. But censoring certain offensive words? Offensive to whom? Who gets to pick? Cause if that’s the case, there’s a whole slew of them that will get on that list because of offense from one group or another (i.e., illegal alien).
The founding fathers would have a very hard time with the PC Police, as do I. But, some people are a lot more sensitive then me.
By the way, Preston, they are naming names, and yours came up! Lol!
Protien Wisdom
March 5th, 2007 at 4:59 pm
Fair enough dsmith. I’m not pc, so I’m having a hard time not agreeing a little with you guys. But I’m still not going to use those words I mentioned earlier, nor will I defend people who do.
March 5th, 2007 at 6:04 pm
Fair enough.
March 5th, 2007 at 7:17 pm
What I have not heard anyone discussing during this hole brouhaha is the assumption that everyone who is gay was born gay.
Is this settled fact? Because if it’s not, then the word “faggot” is no different than calling someone “fat”. Sure, it’s got sexual connotations but what’s happened is this elevation of “faggot” to protected status that I’m not down with. We’ll call it the Matthew Shepard Effect.
If being gay can be narrowed down to a gene, is it then ethical to try and eliminate that gene in the same way that people try to change their kid’s eye color or elect to abort if they think the kid might be born with Downs Syndrome?
I’m just saying because I think it’s a choice. All these college girls who are Lesbians Until Graduation, must have accidentally unlocked that recessive gay gene by inflaming it with Jell-O Shots and Nickelback.
March 5th, 2007 at 7:23 pm
Oh Smantix,
Are you just fishing for controversy?
March 5th, 2007 at 7:34 pm
Who? Me?
It’s a little bit better than arguing with the same people who routinely refer to her as “Mann Coulter” or a “tranny” because she calls out Edwards for his effeminate, metrosexual lifestyle.
I am serious though. I think being gay is a personal choice and people want to escape responsibility for cultural consequences by claiming it’s genetic. And then elevating that personal choice to protected status.
Like the punk rocker who shows up to a job interview and complains about being judged by his appearance.
March 5th, 2007 at 9:32 pm
Smantix,
I’ll touch on your comments later this evening…
Watching Ann Coulter on Hannity and The Fagg…er…Hannity and Colmes.
I see where Ann thinks she made a joke. I agree with her…she was using it as a “schoolyard taunt”.
Full disclosure…I treat 6MB as my on-line “lockerroom”. I say things in the comments section here that I would never say in public situations. Maybe I would repeat some of this stuff on the golf course or at the poker table.
Like “fag”. If someone in my foursome chooses to order a wine cooler on the 19th hole, I’ll probably call him a “fag”. And even those screaming the loudest for Ann’s head have probably done the same type of thing in the last month.
Now if Ann had used the word “wuss” to describe Edwards, there would not have been outrage. Because lets face it…Edwards IS a wuss.
But then “wuss” would not have fit in the context of her “joke”…meaning that the use of the word “faggot” would mean she had to go to rehab (see Isaiah Washington).
Fair enough.
But there’s this. Michelle Malkin makes the point that there was plenty of positive news coming out of CPAC…and all of that was overshadowed by Coulter’s comments.
Were Ann Coulter to use that “joke” in a small private gathering amongst friends…maybe some overly-sensitive pussies would be offended, but most would chuckle at the joke.
But she HAD to know that using the word “faggot” had the effect of dropping a nuclear bomb at CPAC. And this is the reason I think she should apologize…because she gave the media another reason to bash the conservative movement.
March 5th, 2007 at 9:44 pm
What if there was a ConBlogger Hurricane and Very Few People Noticed?…
Ooooooh. Batten down the hatches, Ma! Ann Coulter said something controversial! Sorry not to get all worked up about this, but it smacks a bit too much of speech codes. CPAC, were they interested in having a little lovefest suitable……
March 5th, 2007 at 10:12 pm
Are you homos still talking about this? Yes, I’m saying each and every one of you are totally gay.
March 5th, 2007 at 10:53 pm
Preston you big homophobe…you say that one more time and I’ll smack you with my purse…
Smantix, I don’t buy that crap either about being “born gay”. I was going to elaborate further, but upon closer inspection of your posts, I’ve decided you’ve already said most of what I would have.
March 5th, 2007 at 11:14 pm
True enough. The soundbyte culture does not provide context to her reference. And I’m going to go out on a limb here and say partially because the Gray’s Anatomy context was spoken by a black guy. Same with Tim Hardaway. His comments were much further out of line.
Needless to say, Tim Hardaway is not a conservative commentator but on the other hand more people have probably heard of Hardaway than Coulter.
My first instinct when I heard the comment was BFD. But then, it’s couched in the Brooks Brothers confines of the CPAC conference and it’s clear why it’s been made a big deal.
March 6th, 2007 at 12:54 am
“Are you homos still talking about this? Yes, I’m saying each and every one of you are totally gay.”
Stick it up your ass, you rat bastard.
“Brooks Brothers confines of the CPAC conference”
A-fucking-men. When did this shindig become the Lost Ark of Conservatism that everyone seems is so important to go searching for?
March 6th, 2007 at 10:57 am
Vinnie – you just gave me an excellent idea – we need to put together the anti-CPAC. A gathering of unserious conservative bloggers who have shared goals (limited government, personal and economic freedom, destroying radical izlaaam, et al) who get together, get hammered and everyone wakes up the next day in a puddle of their own puke. I think we’re onto something.
March 6th, 2007 at 11:02 am
Yeah, it’s called Insufferable Pricks party.
March 6th, 2007 at 11:03 am
Uh…wouldn’t that be the IPP convention that your peeps have been clamoring for?
Or at least make that a dual event.
Or would your event be for “bloggers” only, no peanut gallery folk like myself and Swamp Rabbit (where the hell has he been?) allowed?
March 6th, 2007 at 12:40 pm
“get together, get hammered and everyone wakes up the next day in a puddle of their own puke”
That is a party platform that I feel comfortable supporting. As long as it’s my own puke.
Is there a mailing list? A seminar agenda?
March 6th, 2007 at 12:58 pm
You’re right Billy. I totally forgot about the proposed IPP convention. that would most certainly be the anti-CPAC. And we would never limit attendance, with the exception of those who mean us physical harm.
You’re in Buckley.
March 6th, 2007 at 2:56 pm
Sounds fun. I’ll be there. Although I’m only moderately insufferable.
March 6th, 2007 at 3:40 pm
Hey Cranky…
Looks like the groundswell is starting again…
Who can put this together?
March 6th, 2007 at 7:23 pm
A weekend this Summer in Atlantic City would be best. Should we open this up to see what the interest level really is and which weekends would work?
Thoughts, gents?
March 6th, 2007 at 7:58 pm
Oh. You weren’t joking. Obviously my only moderately insufferable self will be parked in front of the computer. Promise to liveblog it and tell the readers what you’re mixing. Just promise there will be copious use of the word “faggot”, you might get a bit of media exposure.
Oh I love a good train wreck.
March 6th, 2007 at 8:22 pm
I will be in New York State the weekend of July 28-29th for the Baseball HOF inductions (Cooperstown). I can make it the weekend afterward…
March 6th, 2007 at 9:14 pm
New Jersey? Ugh. Let’s firebomb Kent State.
March 6th, 2007 at 10:21 pm
I need to check my days off calender to see which weekends I have off this summer.
Somewhere more central would be preferred, but I’d hold my nose and go to Joisey if need be.
March 6th, 2007 at 10:55 pm
“That is a party platform that I feel comfortable supporting. As long as it’s my own puke.”
You are a bigoted bastage. As if YOU’RE puke is so much better than everyone else’s. Elitist!
March 7th, 2007 at 12:11 am
As if it matters…
It will be tough for me to make it anytime between mid-May and the end of July (club basketball). I have a wedding to attend 2nd weekend of August.
But I am down if it fits my schedule…Jersey, Tennessee, D.C., wherever.
And if y’all decide you’d rather come to SoCal, I am sure Yiddish and I could plan a GREAT IPP convention.
(Sorry to commit you, Yiddish).