Er.. shouldn't that be "cutting off your nose in the bathwater"? I'm with you. Everyone seems ready to send her into re-hab, thus proving her point.

Dafydd:

I disagree. I am getting sick and tired of having to make excuses for people like Ann Coulter whose only interest is in selling her books. Yes, there are morons on the left who say bad things all the time. So what? This is not about them. This is about Ann shooting her mouth off at what is supposed to be a serious conservative event. I hope they do not let her come next year. last year we had ragheads, this years we had faggots. I suppose next year we will either hear about Richardson being a wetback or Obama being a n***er. Oops, just kidding.

That is the kind of thing Republicans do not need. It is not funny and it is getting ridiculous. And you know what? If Ann Coulter was a 60 year old woman with a big butt we would have stopped seeing her do her gig a long time ago. I am sick of her.

I joined in the chorus calling for Ann's head. It was a rash response to a bad joke.

But suppose her joke had been ethnic, rather than using a gay smear word; would it have been as easily dismissed? I know she didn't use the "N" word. And she was not saying that Edwards is gay. But it doesn't aid our cause when she makes herself such an easy target.

By pandering to the gay-bashing crowd, not on substance but in terms, she becomes the exception proving the rule. Not that she would cost the votes of gays. But she does turn away centrists that buy the notion that Republicans are "mean."

Who needs to make excuses for someone who has no real responsibilities? I am sick and tired of hearing the right directed bombast and diatribe from the left on a daily basis. The whole thing is a big nothing over Ann attacking one of the liberals "protected species", as she refers to many times.

Maher can call for Cheney's death to make America better on national TV and not a whimper from the same lefties -- Why is that? Why do the lefties laugh out loud at calling for the VPs death? Did anyone ever hear this kind of talk about Clinton?

If you don't like what she said, ignore her, it's easy to do. Suck it up, move on.

The thing that pisses me off is that we are in a war and we need all the support we can get. Going out of your way to alienate people just so you can act like some teenager smoking a joint in the school parking lot and talking dirty is not only not going to help, it hurts.

And Coulter has never been that supportive of the Bush administration whether she is just running her mouth in general or treating someone like Harriet Miers like white trash because she went to a state university the woman has always come across as a rich white obnoxious b**ch. I would spell that out without astericks but I might offend someone. If I was Ann Coulter that would be ok fine but since I am just a lowly commenter I had better watch the language.

bill:

That is like saying the other kids can do it so why can't I? One of the reasons I don't like the left is that they can smirk about the death of the VP. But you know what? This was not late night TV or some fundraiser in Hollywood for Kerry or a Michael Moore movie. It was an event that was supposed to be sponsored for and by serious conservatives with the major contenders for the Republicans nomination in attendance.

Now if the standard of behavior is going to be that if Cindy Sheehan can stalk the president why can't I? Or if Ward Churchill can call the people killed on 9/11 little Eichmans why can't I call Muslims ragheads or Edwards a faggot or whatever the only thing we will accomplish is sending more and more of the population into a state of apathy and disgust when it comes to politics.

I wish people who have their panties in an uproar over this would also discuss the way the Breck Girl shamelessly tried to exploit homophobia by bringing up Mary Cheney's sexual orientation in a televised debate with her father.

Ann Coulter is fun in print, and she is really entertaining live... most of the time. She's really in your face, and addresses issues directly, most of the time in a funny way... you can't expect her to be subtle, it's not her angle. And you just might expect any in your face commentor to throw out a comment that bombs.

And to mangle a point by Rush Limbaugh, 'Comedy only works when there is a grain of TRUTH to it'. I assume Coulter's 'grain of truth' was Edward's primping before the camera tape. Uh... not gay, just absorbed with his appearance.

I think that was called 'Metrosexual', not 'Homosexual'. I can see the confusion in Montana (no offense; not lots of Metrosexuals in Butte) but not by Ann.

So in the end, she was wrong, and that made the joke was unfunny. The big offense was that she offended CPAC, not Conservatives. Most Conservatives have heard of, if not read Ann. But CPAC had their conference's headlines hijacked by her bombword last year, and now again this. It reflects poorly upon CPAC that they invited her back again without an agreement not to do this, or on Ann for thinking so little of CPAC that she felt comfortable doing it. Ann's a pro... she KNEW what kind of headline that word would make no matter WHO whe used it against. Maybe she supports McCain and his disrespect for the organizers, who knows. But for Conservatives in general? I don't think they recognize Ann's delivery to be a reflection of themselves... she's an entertainer, not a policy maker.

I'll still read Ann. Heck, I read liberal bomb-throwers, why would I exclude Ann? At least she's funny. Most of the time.

I was beginning to think that I was the only one who saw the irony of it all, but Jay Tea over at Whizbang seems to have caught on, although he's throwing caveats all over the place in the process.

Ann makes a (very pointed and intentionally un-PC) comment about the tendency to want to send anyone who thinks outside the PC box to "rehab". The result is that about half the Republican establishment immediately starts demanding that she be sent to a Re-Education camp.

They're making her point for her, and showing those of us who want to pay attention just who has been sucking at the PC kool-aid jar, too.

Have we actually bought into the great deceit of liberalism -- that individuals have no innate value (good or ill) but merely exist as representatives of some group -- so that everything Ann Coulter says taints Thomas Sowell, P.J. O'Rourke, William F. Buckley jr., Hugh Hewitt, Rush Limbaugh, Bill Kristol, Michelle Malkin, and Dafydd ab Hugh?

I am ssoooo tired of the Coulter bashing. As always, I'm amazed at how quickly Republicans are to throw one of their own under the bus. And it does seem to be those who are most effective at what they do. My first reaction was "gosh, what a bunch of prissy saps." So far, I love Hannity's response and wish more Republicans had his guts.

SH: I didn't hear it. I'd rather see it before I comment on it and whatever. You know, no other person is responsible for what a person says except that person. And so, if they have a problem with what Ann Coulter says, blame Ann Coulter. You can't blame somebody else for what she said. So I didn't see it.

So my suggestion is why don't we ignore the stupid stuff and focus on winning elections and the war on terror.

I think Jefferson has it nailed. Coulter is using her joke to tie in comments she made previously about PC speak and needing rehab. She's not only being outrageous, she's also being clever.

http://www.floppingaces.net/2007/03/03/ann-coulter-the-lightening-rod/

jefferson, I hardly think "half the Republican establishment immediately starts demanding that she be sent to a Re-Education camp."

Ann Coulter has carved herself a role -- attention-getting author and political/cultural commentator, and (like it or not) representative of the conservative wing of the Republican party.

To the extent that she speaks as the former, she can say whatever she wants. To the extent that she speaks as the latter, it would be helpful if she appreciated that her remarks do not help conservatives (or the Republican party) capture the affections of The Mighty Middle."

That is, after all, what wins elections.

jefferson, I hardly think "half the Republican establishment immediately starts demanding that she be sent to a Re-Education camp."

Ann Coulter has carved herself a role -- attention-getting author and political/cultural commentator, and (like it or not) representative of the conservative wing of the Republican party.

To the extent that she speaks as the former, she can say whatever she wants. To the extent that she speaks as the latter, it would be helpful if she appreciated that her remarks do not help conservatives (or the Republican party) capture the affections of "The Mighty Middle."

That is, after all, what wins elections.

Oh puhleaze, this is not about being politically correct.

I think that half of Ann's appeal with the male members of the conservative movement has more to do with the fact that they want to lay her than it does to do with her amazing intellect which is of such brilliance that she has to call a trial lawyer a faggot in order to come up with something insulting to say about him. But it would be politcally incorrect of me to note that the CPAC this year will be all about Ann and her big mouth and her cute butt and her book sales.

I don't like Edwards, I think he is a fraud. I think his house is ridiculous. I think his remarks about Cheney's daughter were as tacky as Ann's little stand up comedy routine, but I am getting tired of cutting this woman slack. Believe it or not calling someone a faggot is intended to be demeaning, not only to Edwards but to every homosexual out there. So while we are on the subject of Cheney's daughter and politcal correctness, perhaps we should ask her if she would have been offended if Ann had called Hillary Clinton a bull dyke.

IN fact if it is the desire of the Republican party to make it plain to all concerned that we are indeed the homophobic party, maybe next year Ann could do a cute little skit about Clinton and Cheney getting it on. What a hoot that would be. And how daring and in your face.

But then I am just one of those people who has her panties in a twist so who cares what I think or how I vote. Just put me on that ever growing list of people the Republicans do not need.

I think that half of Ann's appeal with the male members of the conservative movement has more to do with the fact that they want to lay her than it does to do with her amazing intellect which is of such brilliance that she has to call a trial lawyer a faggot in order to come up with something insulting to say about him. But it would be politcally incorrect of me to note that the CPAC this year will be all about Ann and her big mouth and her cute butt and her book sales.

Sorry, Terrye, but you are missing the whole point. (Don't feel badly. A lot of folks are.)

First off, focusing on the fact that she used a non-PC word is keeping you from seeing that she had to say something very un-PC to make the point that she was making there. She could have said the same thing about Obama and used the N-word to make the same point, but then the PC Police would have come and institutionalized her immediately, so what she said was a good compromise.

Secondly, regarding her putative physical attractiveness, (Although it's not a bit relevant to the discussion, IMO.) I don't see much there anyway.

I'm not into anexoretic looking women. I will wager she isn't a meth addicts and can afford all the food she wants. Such being the case, I don't get the starvation chic look, but to each their own. But there it is. While I'd love to converse with her at length, she's only more attractive to me than John Edwards is because she is female, and therefore does meet my standards regarding heterosexuality.

That I have other standards regarding Adultery and suchlike could be mentioned here, but those wouldn't even come into play, because I find bony women to be a turn off.

But that's all beside the point anyway, now isn't it? I thought we were talking about something she said, not what she looks like.

Best post Ive read on Coulter-Gate.

"Always refreshing."

Many of you are missing the point.

In particular, Terrye, who is evidently saying that, since Ann Coulter said something she didn't like, therefore Terrye joins "the ever growing list of people the Republicans do not need"... as if Ann Coulter speaks for the Republican Party, or all conservatives, or all Christians, or some other group.

One of my two points is that she does not. She speaks for Ann Coulter.

It is the Democratic Party, not ours, that thrives on "identity politics," the idea that you are only significant insofar as you represent a group that is one of us, not one of them: Since Democrats like gays, blacks, Hispanics, members of unions, teachers, trial lawyers, and leftists, then any member of those groups is welcome.

However, members of certain other groups -- white Southerners, businessmen, the religious, capitalists, right-to-lifers, gunowners -- are hated and shunned.

Terrye, this is tribal politics at its worst... and without even realizing it, you're slipping over that line: You are in essence saying 'It's Coulter or me -- either she goes, or I go!'

Ann Coulter speaks only for herself. She does not speak for you, she does not speak for me. She is an individual, each of us is another; and we must treat each person as an individual, rejecting the very idea that what Coulter writes taints the writing of Sowell... or else, the only difference between a Republican and a Democrat is that we're from different tribes.

The other point of the piece is that you must consider Coulter, or any other individual, in totality, not solely in context of one episode. Have you actually read any of her writing? If the answer is No, then you really haven't sufficient information to form an opinion whether she is good or bad for conservatism.

For me, the part of Coulter's writings that infuriates me most is her complete rejection of biological evolution in favor of creationism: it's a foolish and indefensible position, and it's clear she simply doesn't understand how science works or what scientific evidence is.

It's beyond her. Coulter's argument -- as with that of many other conservatives -- appears to be "I can't understand the theory, so it must be gibberish."

Okay; she has a blind spot. I ignore what she writes on that subject and admire the rest (actually, I write furious responses that I don't post, because nobody is interested).

Admittedly, Coulter's blindness here is shared by at least a third of all conservatives, who imagine some sort of conflict between evolutionary theory and the Bible. Read the Language of God for an unanswerable rebuttal.

Here is another example: I absolutely love Michelle Malkin; I've guest-blogged on her blog, and I've corresponded with her for some time. But she is totally, absolutely, dead-flat-bang wrong, and offensively so, about Manzanar and the other concentration camps we set up for Americans of Japanese descent during the war.

Do I call for her to be shunned? No; I accept that she has this quirk about the Japanese that I will never accept... but that the rest of her is so valuable, I just shrug and skip those sections.

Back to Coulter. This part is really, really important:

Since William F. Buckley, jr., and Brent Bozell wrote McCarthy and His Enemies in 1954, there was not a single popular conservative who full-throatedly defended the attempt to purge the government of actual, literal Communist spies. Rather, even Republicans -- even conservative Republicans -- accepted the spin that there were no Communists; that McCarthy was insane; that the effort was a witch-hunt that we must never repeat.

Even today, many who call themselves conservatives use the term "McCarthyite" as a conversation-stopping charge of reckless character assassination based upon delusion and inuendo.

Nobody was willing to defend what the senator tried to do, and even his success at doing it, for forty-eight years. When Joseph McCarthy was destroyed by vile slander, the conservatives and anticommunists of the day shuffled and cringed and apologized for insulting the memory of the Great Dictator -- Franklin Delano Roosevelt (whom many "conservatives" now revere; go figure).

For forty-eight years, anticommunists maintained a discreet silence. Until Ann Coulter published Treason.

Maybe you don't spend a lot of time with liberals, but I know that they reacted far more violently to that book than they have to any of the dumb jokes Coutler has made. They use that book to label us all "McCarthyites"... and rather than defend it (it is magnificently well researched and meticulously documented), many anticommunists plead that Coulter didn't really mean it, she was just joking, don't blame us -- she's not part of our tribe!

Should that book be removed from the shelves, because liberals really, really despise it and use it as ammunition against Republicans and conservatives? Should she be stopped from publishing future books that might offend?

By saying she should be cast out and shunned because she used a bad word in a bad joke about a very, very bad man, that is in effect what you are saying: You demand that an incredibly valuable asset to conservatism, Republicanism, anticommunism, and Americanism be made into an "unperson," just because you don't like her occasionally inflammatory language.

Yet you do not apply this standard to them, to the other side. While you may believe that everybody will see how much higher our standards are than theirs -- the real effect will be that they get to say what they want (and in as inflammatory a way as they like), we're stifled, and the American people, hearing only one side, will award the victory to the Left.

That may be unfair; it may even be unseemly; but that is the way the world works.

The correct response is this: Yeah, she shouldn't have said it. So what? What does that have to do with what I'm saying? Do I look like Ann Coulter?

And when you cite her in the future about Communism in the State Department during the FDR administration -- or the evidence of the perfidy of Bill Clinton, or the propensity of liberals to engage in wholesale lying and slander to win arguments against Republicans, or the liberal attack on religious faith today -- and when the liberal against whom you're debating says "but Ann Coulter said a bad word about John Edwards"... the proper response is, Why don't you answer the actual question instead of squirming around, trying to change the subject?

My post is not to justify calling John Edwards that name. It is to note that Ann Coulter exists as more than simply a caricature who makes unwise jokes every now and again; she also articulates valuable, even precious truths that many of the rest of the "Right" is afraid to utter for fear of giving offense... and that we forget this at our peril.

Dafydd

Editor & Publisher relates the story this way:

Speaking Friday at the annual Conservative Political Action Conference CPAC) in Washington, D.C., Coulter closed her remarks with: “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.”

For those of you that never took an English course after 6th grade, she said that if she "...can't really talk about Edwards" because of not wanting to "...use the word 'faggot'". She didn't say "call someone a 'faggot'"she said "use the word". Maybe you think that is what she meant, but with some effort I'm sure you could use that word in a sentence discussing Edward's political positions rather than his sexual ones. Possibly she was planning to use a word much worse than ‘faggot’ and lamenting what the punishment might be. And based on ‘tolerance’ what’s wrong with ‘faggot’ or in comparison what the opposition has called her? English is a language that can be very precise and everyone seems to be interpreting this rather than reading it as it was said. This is the same thing that is so irritating about the misuse of the language by the lame stream media, it's targeted to play to people whose jumping to conclusions based on inconclusive evidence is their main source of exercise.

Perhaps patent infringement on the use of technique, but which school of journalism actually holds the patent?

The first test I apply to conservatives savaging Ann Coulter is to ask them whether they were offended by what she wrote about SCOTUS nominee Harriet Myers. If said conservatives were NOT offended by Ann Coulter's savaging of Myers, say perhaps because they AGREED with it, then I proceed to ignore the rest of their, now proven to be hypocritical, complaint.

As Dafydd points out, Ann Coulter is the humor equivalent of a weapon of mass destruction. The Left has many, many, MANY more of these than the Right, but they differ in having no detectable brain activity -- whatever Ann is, she is NOT stupid.

IMHO where Ann makes her worst mistake is when she applies her thermonuclear humor to the totally undeserving, like Harriet Myers and John Roberts. This most recent flap is IMHO a lesser failing, like her somewhat over-the-top criticism of the truly odious Jersey Girls, in which the problem is that she has allowed herself to stray somewhat from the central secret of humor: truth. John Edwards is certainly an effeminate twit when compared to a real man like George W. Bush, as an absolutely hilarious 2004 video combining that "scandalous" footage of "W" giving the finger with footage of Edwards taking over from his makeup person to the tune of "Rawhide" demonstrated. But he is NOT homosexual, and attempted humor to that effect is going to make even conservatives go, "Huh?" Similarly her claim that the "Jersey Girls" "enjoyed" their husbands' deaths is rather obviously wrong; what they enjoyed was EXPLOITING their husbands' death for despicable political purposes, a slight but IMPORTANT difference.

Daffyd:

Thank you!

I got so focused on everyone being upset by the fact that she said a non-PC word that I neglected to explain why even if she was wrong this time, she's been right a gazillion times before.

But I still don't think she was "wrong" to say that. The reaction proves her point better than her statement ever could.

Why would some leave the Republican Party over Coulter's "faggot" but not over Allen's "macaca" or Falwell's [virtually everything he says]? All of these offend me. But where would one go- to the oh-so-civil Democrats? How about joining the Libertarians who value freedom to do or say whatever to greater extremes? Maybe one can become a principled Indie whose vote of conscience throws elections to either the Dem or Repub candidate...

And, what about those who would demand civility of discourse from our pols and pundits but who gossip, snub and insult undeserving others on the public Internet or praise those who do and are fine with crude free-for-all exchanges? The posturing is fascinating. Am having a difficult time finding much moral consistency in certain commenter’s reactions on a number of sites after watching center-right blogs these past few years.

Oh well.

Dafydd-

I’m no student of Ann Coulter, but I trust everything you say is correct.

It may be true that the habitués of your blog are the kind of Republicans, conservatives or whatever to which you refer -- viz. the rugged individualists, the free thinkers who are not beholden to “identity politics”. The problem is that a lot of people who vote Republican, or whom the party wants to convince to vote Republican, may not be quite as sophisticated as present company.

Those unwashed masses may actually fall prey to the evils of “identity politics”. Some of them may always vote Republican, and some may swing from the other side may if they think their “identity” is better represented this election cycle by Democrats. The Republicans certainly don’t want to tell these folks they’re not wanted -- they‘ll take their votes for whatever reason they may be cast.

That’s where the problem with Ann Coulter comes in. She is and should be free to express her opinions to her heart’s content. And she should be free to identify herself as Republican, conservative or Mugwump. But when she speaks at an event organized by the Republicans or, as in this case, their confederates at CPAC, she can be viewed as speaking for the party -- at least by those “identity politics” drones. And that's why the party should decline to accept her offer to speak at official and semi-official events.

Dick E:

And that's why the party should decline to accept her offer to speak at official and semi-official events.

I have no problem with that. And I have no problem with Giuliani, Romney, and McCain having a "Sister Souljah" moment anent Coulter.

What I vehemently reject is trying to read her out of the conservative ummah on the basis of this.

I'm appalled by how Pavlovian are those on the right, jumping to assuage the offended sensibilities of liberals whenever they furiously tinkle their bells.

It astonishes me that we feel any guilt, responsibility, or urge to apologize to the likes of Howard "Republicans have never worked a day in their lives" Dean or John "Two Americas" Edwards.

And frankly, I reject the thesis that only a weak, anemic Republicanism will keep those moderates on board. I prefer a muscular, take-no-prisoners Republican Party that has the spine to tell the whiny Democrats that people who swim in gasoline have no business playing with matches.

When they clean up their own houses, when they dump on Bill Maher for expressing disappointment that Vice President Cheney wasn't killed by al-Qaeda in Afghanistan, when they muzzle John Murtha, when they stuff Keith Olbermann in a sack, when they stop hiring harpies like Amanda Marcotte as official campaign bloggers -- then let them stomp up and demand we throw Ann Coulter under the semi.

Until then, I, personally, plan to follow Reagan's 11th.

Dafydd

Dafydd-

Amen! Although I could live with an occasional prisoner. Could we start with John Murtha in a supermax somewhere?

This iok it is nice oky

On another site someone explained his objection to Coulter sorta-calling Edwards a “faggot” in terms of it impacting the reps of “the other people” because it was done at the CPAC meeting. What I don’t quite understand is whether it would it be fine for Ann to call Edwards a "faggot" here? There? Everywhere but at a CPAC meeting? On the radio? On TV? On the Internet available for all to see?

Looks like a double standard to me. Apparently, it's more about appearances and an official public face presented to the electorate than it is about what is said and how it's said in even other public venues, such as on the Internet where people go for it, let their hair down and attack in a personal way, as if public, easily accessible communications were private living rooms and search engines didn’t cache most of the trash talk, which they do, or keep some sites’ girlie-clique behavior on record for years.

Or maybe the idea is it that Ann has some official representative standing (although unelected) and, as such, shouldn't say certain things, but the rest of us may? That conservatives and Repubs are tiered into the elite who have to be mindful of their manners and then the rest of us, who can act like rude and crude high schoolers because we’re not important? I’m reading comments objecting to what Coulter said from people who either say themselves, or approve of others saying (almost more cowardly, huh?), unnecessarily personal and insulting things about not only Dems but Repubs and fellow conservative commenters.

So much of this sounds like “Trash-talk/ frankness for me but not for thee” kind of asymmetrical moralizing on Coulter. Where’s the consistency? Either believe it’s fine to cross the line of opprobrium in public discussion, or don’t. Or, then again, it might be that “faggot” offends special case sensibilities toward homosexuals, but other kinds of personal insults are OK. It’s so confusing, especially in this case where Coulter, who has been called every name in the book and demeaned on the basis of her looks and singlehood for years, very cleverly left herself some wiggle room as to what she actually said.

Dafydd, I have to re-visit my years as a teenager, growing up in Newark NJ during the late 1950’s to share the meaning of the term she used. I would characterize John Edwards by his “behavior” and “positions” as being a “no-balls, frigging prissy pussy” and got away with it. The word “faggot” was used the same way back then and had little or nothing to do with someone’s sexual orientation. No big deal! I think she went a bit over the top in picking this venue to expand her already committed feelings about Edwards in this fashion. But, that’s Ann! The Lib “victims” won’t let this one go for a few news cycles.

Dafydd, Again you demonstrate why you are the best blogger out there (because I agree with you nearly 99% of the time;) ). Anyway, Conservatives just play into liberal hands when they rush to condemn other conservatives. I suspect it is an attempt to be taken seriously by the liberal establishment and a way to show how "fair minded" and "tolerant" they really, really, are. I mean it, WE ARE NOT INTOLERANT RUBES, WE ARE ALL NICE PEOPLE DEEP DOWN!!

How about I am ticked at Ann over this because she has given cover to Bill Maher for wishing the murder of our VP, because she managed to breathe life into Edwards' campaign, and because she only fules calls for censorship in an environment where the Courts frequently back censorship of political speech already.
She wasted a chance to belittle Edwards for the useless waste of air he is and instead brought him back to life.

Ann Coulter has consistently run all over her opposition. She's brainy,brash, and has more guts than Barney Frank. Top that off she's not hard to look at and she appears to have quite a sense of humor. I can see how she would intimidate most men but, as Elvis sang..."One night with you, is what I'm now pray'n for" Of course the Jordanaires would have to leave the room but OMG what a gal. She's as good, if not better than the late campaigner Lee Atwater, who was a genius and played a very mean guitar.
I think it was Lee Atwater who remarked about the recently room temperature VP nominee Thomas Eagleton having to be ramped up to speed with a set of jumper cables, referring to his electroshock treatment....good ole Geo. McGovern's 19 day VP running mate.
Anyway Ann, keep bring'n it. If they can't handle it let'm cry.

Nice article. I am tired of the spineless ones who would throwCoulter under a bus while ignoring the dhimmiecrats constain drumbeat of insults and slanders. But perhaps Coulter should give a Kerry apologizy, you know, I regret that there are those whose preceptions may have been offended.

In the meantime we get to see the Maher's call for Chenney's death, the Al Sharpton's and Jessie Jacksons with nary a word that they cost the Leftwing votes. They don't because these people hate America and that's what makes Coulter so hated. She will not adhere to the sacred cow policy that the MSM and Left has proclaimed and the RINOs observe so religiously.

Don't like the word faggot oh the horrors. I wonder how many of these people would entrust their young children to a queer babysitter. I especially love those who seem to forget that in the recent election it was the Dems outing those evil old queens because they dallied with pages and by the way wouldn't tow the Leftist line.

So to the RINOs and Leftists who dislike Ann I say bite me. She's has nmore credibility than all the Dean Esmay's and other pretend conservatives.

LOL. This dust-up shows it’s not what you say but who says it and where. A family member who lives in NYC recently referred to a “faggot”, and I objected. She said, “Silly mom, that’ s what other gays call homos who are extraordinarily affected, prissy and womanly. All my queer friends use the term for those kind of people.”

I told her I didn’t like the word, but I certainly couldn’t refute the fact the term was in common use in the “community”. Made me wonder just who is being prissy in this affair/ non-issue.

Btw, my girl is hetero but "gets along" under the radar. Perhaps more public and Republican hetero Ann can't as easily get away with using Others' community-owned words.

It's not what you say, but who you are, when and how you say it.

How about I am ticked at Ann over this because she has given cover to Bill Maher for wishing the murder of our VP

Calling someone a name is equivalent to wanting to murder someone?

Now that is a leap in logic

Have we actually bought into the great deceit of liberalism -- that individuals have no innate value (good or ill) but merely exist as representatives of some group -- so that everything Ann Coulter says taints Thomas Sowell, P.J. O'Rourke, William F. Buckley jr., Hugh Hewitt, Rush Limbaugh, Bill Kristol, Michelle Malkin, and Dafydd ab Hugh?

Have we actually bought into the the great deceit that every homosexual is some limp-wristed, primping, lisping, sniveling, screaming, flaming queen like Gore Vidal, Tuman Capote, or Liberace?

We'll leave out such towering monuments to conservatism like Dolan, Kohn, et al of course, being they were on "our" side.

Shameless plug: For some perspective, come on over to my blog and have a read. I rethought this entire affair after I slept on it, and I just might give you some food for thought.

Thanks for hissing in, . Now you can slither in with a comment, o wise. (sign out)