Ann Coulter wasn't even brave enough to directly say it.
She didn't call presidential candidate John Edwards a faggot, not exactly.
At the end of the speech she was giving 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.
Ann Coulter, though-Ann Coulter, when confronted, just continued making jokes. On her website, she says, "I'm so ashamed, I can't stop laughing."
Really, Ann Coulter? Really?
I mean, come on.
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."
Welcome back to the table, Republicans.
Ann Coulter, you should listen to your party. You should apologize. Calling someone a faggot to get your audience to laugh doesn't just hurt gays and lesbians and their families, and doesn't just hurt John Edwards. It hurts Republicans. It hurts the political debate. It hurts Democracy. And it hurts America.
17 Comments for “De-Coulterizing Republicans”
posted by Brian Miller on
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.
A quick look at the presidential candidates of both old parties confirms that.
Get back to me when the term “gay” shows up on John Edwards’ web site (in policies other than a condemnation of Coulter’s shenanigants). Come convince me the GOP is oh-so-pro-gay when John McCain renounces his support for Arizona’s failed anti-gay amendment.
I’ll get excited when Hillary decides to have an open discussion with gays about her policies — replete with willingness to take tough questions from the audience. . . not the scripted HRC event closed to the public that she ended up happening.
And Mitt Romney “condemning Ann’s rhetoric” and calling for “respect for gay people” after his bullshit about “Massachusetts becoming the Las Vegas of gay marriage” and his entreaties to voters to “protect marriage from homosexuals?”
“Back at the table?”
Please. They’re not even at the table, even if they’re all out to lunch.
posted by blueflash on
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.
posted by Rex Edgmon on
One would like to think the best response to Ms. Coulter is to just ignore her but it’s hard to ignore a rabid skunk spraying in your direction continuously. It’s obvious she’s little else but an opportunist laughing all the way to the bank and probably doesn’t have a real conviction or principal in her dark little heart. Maybe it’s best to just give her enough rope to hang herself as the old saw goes.
posted by Anon on
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?
posted by The Gay Species on
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.
By “association,” the bait bit back. Oh, the conservatives lapped it up, salivating, crying for more of the same, which showed the less-conservatives folk via T.V. just how toxic this mind-twist operates throughout these folk. This is not “Goldwater” conservatism, it’s Taliban conservatism. It gave us GWB, Katrina Non-response, an Unjust and Unsound War, Higher Oil Prices, Taxpayer Subsidies of Corporate Multinationals, Fewer Government Services at Higher Prices, the largest spending since FDR, the first economic disparity in history (90% of all income increases went to the top 1%), the Medicare D fiasco rewards to pharmaceuticals and insurance at the elderly’s expense, the $250 BILLION pork-barrel projects (like the Bridge to Nowhere), religion over science, and religious indoctrination at public taxpayers’ expense. This is all Conservative Amerika.
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!
posted by John on
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)?
Credit is due to Rod Dreher, Ed Morrissey and (I can’t believe I’m saying this) Michelle Maulkin for bringing this debate over our rights out of the gutter.
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.
posted by Brian Miller on
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.
‘Tis homophobia with a friendly face!
posted by ColoradoPatriot on
Hey Brian…when was the last time you tried your “experiment” at a Democratic Party event? Just wondering…
posted by Brian Miller on
I tried at Election 2006. . . and again rather recently at a campaign event.
They don’t like Libertarians asking tough questions at their events.
Getting access to candidates to ask them why they voted for DOMA or haven’t sponsored the UAFA is equally tough.
You see, we “single issue” types aren’t welcome — when Dem Party folks say they “support” us, it’s at closed parties where no formal promises have to be made, and where checks are cut for campaign donations.
You won’t even get a chance to ask the actual candidates where they stand, most of the time — because their campaign stops are so scripted.
And yes, the Democratic Party *does* suck on gay rights. Outright Libertarians gets regular reports of Democrat politicians who don’t like questions about gay issues and respond curtly — or not at all.
posted by Blueflash on
I’ve known quite a few heterosexual libertarians and when their backs are up against the wall, as they always are, their social libertarianism goes right out the window and they vote Republican because of taxes. So how are they different, practically, from heterosexual Democrats?
posted by Craig2 on
I’m inclined to agree with Bluefish. While there are good consistent libertarians out there, many more of them turn out to be social conservatives in
anti-tax drag when the latter issue comes up.
Craig Young
Wellington, NZ
posted by hrc on
CHECK OUT OUR *NEW* 2007 COLLABORATION WITH HEATHERETTE THE OPENLY GAY DESIGN DUO OF RICHIE RICH AND TRAVER RAINS HAVE CREATED A TEE – EXCLUSIVELY FOR HRC – THAT TRULY CULTIVATES THE POP STAR IN EVERYONE
http://hrccornerstore.myimagefirst.com/store/product.asp?sku=11621&id=719
posted by Brian Miller on
I’ve known quite a few heterosexual libertarians and when their backs are up against the wall, as they always are, their social libertarianism goes right out the window and they vote Republican
Heterosexual libertarians should vote Libertarian, not Republican. And my experience applies equally to heterosexual liberals — put their backs up against the wall and their social liberalism disappears in order to defend entitlements or other social welfare programs they personally benefit from.
posted by Brian Miller on
As for heterosexual big-L Libertarians, I think our candidates’ records speak for themselves.
Our (heterosexual) 2004 presidential candidate was the first national candidate to march in a Gay Pride parade during his candidacy (San Francisco’s pride parade).
Back in 1996, when Bill Clinton and liberal Democrats like Chuck Schumer and Paul Wellstone, scrambled to vote for and promote the GOP’s DOMA, heterosexual Libertarian Harry Browne strongly condemned DOMA and the bigotry it represented.
The Libertarian Party (which is overwhelming heterosexual) is the only national party to call for the repeal of the DOMA in its party platform, and the only national political party to underscore the anti-gay character of the Democratic-Republican party’s policies during Valentine’s Day.
So looking at parties, it’s no contest — but even looking at broad trends, it’s hardly a contest. Libertarians (big-L and small-l) are literally the only political movement in America that has a majority working, consistently, for the overturning of anti-gay policies through both our primary party and everyday life.
posted by Blueflash on
Well, those who have to scrape from the bottom of the political barrel are always pro-gay. Even the Russian revolution promised full equality for gay citizens. At any rate , libertarianism in an overpopulated world of shrinking resources would only be prologue to Easter Island.
posted by Neptune on
“So looking at parties, it’s no contest — but even looking at broad trends, it’s hardly a contest. Libertarians (big-L and small-l) are literally the only political movement in America that has a majority working, consistently, for the overturning of anti-gay policies through both our primary party and everyday life.”
The Green Party platform supports:
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 Conflict.
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:
http://www.fairvote.org/irv/
posted by Chris Fox on
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.