Well, she did it again, and the responses were predictably schoolmarmish. In case you missed it, here's the offending line:
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.
You can guess how the liberal pundits responded, but they'd say the same things if Coulter didn't leave in her leave-in conditioner. On the other hand (or maybe the other side of the same hand), here are the non-liberal responses:
Kathryn Jean Lopez: "I agree Ann's unfunny joke speaks to and feeds into a hurtful bigotry and helps to caricature proponents of traditional marriage."
Peter Suderman: "Ann Coulter's CPAC remark about Edwards was despicable—completely out of bounds for civil political discourse. Like Kathryn said, it's not surprising coming from Coulter, but that doesn't make it any more tolerable."
Rudy Giuliani: "The comments were completely inappropriate and there should be no place for such name-calling in political debate."
Dean Barnett: "Idiotic. Disgusting. Stupid. Moronic."
Captain Ed: "Bottom line: Coulter's remark was indefensible."
Oh, shenanigans. If we didn't have our collective butt cheeks in such a clinch, we'd recognize this as a joke. And a finely crafted joke, at that. Notice how she never actually called anybody a "faggot," and only used the word in reference to the Isaiah Washington incident. Brilliant phrasing. Plus, she skewered both Edwards and the therapy culture with a single one-liner.
Now, was it below the belt? You betcha. But Coulter doesn't play by Marquis of Queensbury rules; she's a cage fighter. And she's a sharp self-promoter. She knew exactly how this would play and how much publicity she'd get out of it. Just look at that satisfied little head bob she gives at the end of her speech. That's a lady who just got her way.
What bothers me most about this is conservatives' pusillanimous mimicry of oft-offended liberals, huffing about how this or that is beyond the pale. In a more civilized time, anyone who was insulted by Coulter would insult her right back and get on with his life. Now we have to spend a week denouncing her and saying she shouldn't be allowed to speak in public. Aren't we supposed to be the ones against speech codes? But the victim mentality playbook has become the standard, and conservatives just accept it and play along. They should be thankful for Ann Coulter. What would they do if they didn't have her to distance themselves from?
Update: Sister Toldjah, no Coulter fan, makes an excellent point when she compares liberal outrage over this to their ho-hum response to much more poisonous attacks from the left.
Another update: And a big, ol' "Lighten Up" to The American Mind, which has published an open letter to CPAC denouncing Coulter and asking that she be banned from future conventions:
Denouncing Coulter is not enough. After her "raghead" remark in 2006 she took some heat. Yet she did not grow and learn. We should have been more forceful. This year she used a gay slur. What is next? If Senator Barack Obama is the de facto Democratic Presidential nominee next year will Coulter feel free to use a racial slur? How does that help conservatism?
Egads. Would I rather be associated with reckless bomb-throwers like Coulter or whiny prigs like this? Hmmm... thinking, thinking...
Yet another update: Two wrongs don't make a right, but for liberals who are all in a twist about this, Patterico has a catalog of plenty--and I mean plenty--of examples of liberal hate speech.
0 comments:
Post a Comment