Ann Coulter reveals the hidden bigotry of the Republicans.

She does this by saying what a lot of them are thinking and the proof is in the fact that no one on the Right condemns her hate speech nor uninvites her from making appearances at high profile Republican events. Ann’s latest attack came on Friday when she “jokingly” referred to presidential candidate John Edwards as a faggot:

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.”

Audience members appeared startled, then many clapped, and she opened the floor to questions. The event was carried on C-SPAN. Many newspapers, including The New York Times, covered the event but failed to mention the Coulter slur at first.

They’re startled because they’re not used to having their thoughts blurted out like that. Oh sure some conservative commentators have put forward the act of expressing disapproval:

On Saturday, Kevin Madden, a spokesman for Romney said: “It was an offensive remark. Governor Romney believes all people should be treated with dignity and respect.”

“The comments were wildly inappropriate,” said Brian Jones, a spokesman for McCain.

The remarks also drew disapproval from some popular conservative commentators. Ed Morrissey on his Captain’s Quarters blog wrote: “Yeah, that’s just what CPAC needs—an association with homophobia. Nice work, Ann.”

Michelle Malkin expressed disapproval, and at her Hot Air site regular contributor “Bryan” wrote: “I’m no fan of John Edwards, but that’s just a stupid joke. It’s over the line. The laughter it generated across the room was more than a little annoying. Last year it was ‘raghead.’ This year it’s calling John Edwards a ‘faggot.’ Two years in a row, Coulter has finished up an otherwise sharp CPAC routine with an obnoxious slur that liberals will fling at conservatives for years to come. Thanks, Ann.”

…but the folks at ACU and CPAC make it clear that this sort of smear tactics is just fine with them:

ACU and CPAC leave it to our audience to determine whether comments are appropriate or not. “Ann Coulter is known for comments that can be both provocative and outrageous. That was certainly the case in her 2007 CPAC appearance and previous ones as well. But as a point of clarification, let me make it clear that ACU and CPAC do not condone or endorse the use of hate speech,” said David A. Keene, ACU Chairman.

Meanwhile Coulter isn’t backing down:

For Sunday’s paper he elicited this reply from Coulter: “C’mon, it was a joke. I would never insult gays by suggesting that they are like John Edwards. That would be mean.”

The folks in the Edwards campaign are trying to turn lemons into lemonade by using the attack as a means of raising money for their campaign calling it “Coulter Cash”. Edwards campaign manager David Bonior posted a letter to the campaign website calling for donations and Coulter decided to take the opportunity to launch another attack on the Edwards campaign:

A copy of Bonior’s letter was posted on Coulter’s Web site, with this note underneath: “It’s always good to divert Bonior from his principal pastime which is fronting for Arab terrorists.”

There’s no low she won’t stoop to and her ongoing acceptance and approval by the Republicans only lays bare the lie that they supposedly disapprove of her remarks. She says what many of them are thinking and they love her for it.

20 thoughts on “Ann Coulter reveals the hidden bigotry of the Republicans.

  1. Late to the party on this one:

    The Log Cabin Republicans have condemned Ann Coulter.

    John McCain has denounced her.  So has Rudy Giuliani.  And Mitt Romney.  (h/t Hot Air)

    More reaction from conservative blogs (Robbie linked to a few others):

    Powerline: “Deplorable.”

    Redstate is “shunning” her.

    Blogs for Bush: “Stupid.”

    Bruce at GayPatriot: “Stupidity and rabidness.”

    JustOneMinute: “In the past I have declined to join in ritual excorcisms of the Coultergeist since I don’t consider it my job to sell her books.”

    RightWingNews: “Juvenile … selfish … obnoxious.“

    RightWingNutHouse: “Despicable.”

    LittleGreenFootballs: “Stupid” … but they also hit the silence on the Left about their own morons.

    Roger L. Simon: “That tasteless and dimwitted joke had nothing to do with Edwards and everything to do with Ann. She, not the candidates, had to be the story from CPAC. Just like the kid in the back of the classroom climbing over her seat and frantically waving her hand – ‘Call on me! Call on me!’ – she just couldn’t stand not to be the center of attention.”  The rest of the post is also worth a read.

    Volokh Conspiracy: Ilya said, “Coulter has said a great many idiotic, bigoted, and offensive things over the years, and calling John Edwards a “faggot” is actually tame by her standards.”  While Orin said, “If Ann Coulter were a liberal, conservatives would denounce her as a perfect symbol of how modern liberalism has lost all sense of decency. But Coulter’s a conservative, so how does a conservative audience respond when Coulter makes a ‘faggot’ joke about a Democratic Presidential candidate? With laughter and applause. Yes, laughter and applause. Just pathetic.”

    I’m telling you because the Left probably won’t — they’re less interested in the truth and more interested in trying to make it look like Republicans actually agree with that anorexic whore.  They are also much less likely to disclaim the rantings of one of the heartthrobs of their own base, such as Cindy Sheehan, than are Republicans.

    So keep that in mind the next time the Left goes sotto voce when it is suggested that they denounce any of the various deranged liberals.

    I don’t know that I buy the Left’s “Ann Coulter is a representative for all the GOP stands for” spin, or gay-friendly moderate Rudy Giuliani wouldn’t be leading all Republican polls by a healthy margin.  While she certainly is symptomatic of a strain of thinking on the Right (viz here), I think her “joke” speaks to her own basic pathology more than anything else.

    http://www.malcontent.biz/blog/

    Nuff said.

  2. Yeah, I mentioned the fact that some conservatives were playing lip service to condemning her comment in my original entry, but that’s just what it is: lip service. Even Mitt Romney introduced her as a “good thing.”

    ‘Nuff said.

  3. She is abrasive and rude. I took the time to wiki the word Faggot. It means Gay or Effeminate. Effeminate has nothing to do with homosexuality. And strangely enough when I hear the word Fag, I don’t relate it to homosexuality. I also do not think homosexuality when I hear the word Tomboy. John Edwards comes off as effeminate. ( JMO ). I usually refer to tort lawyers ( John Edwards ) as Cocksuckers. And no that does not mean I think he’s gay.

  4. Les, painting with Elwed’s brush, and attributing to all Republicans Coulter’s words is very much akin, albeit on a much smaller and much less public stage, to a drive-by commenter equating some of your more vocal and crazy commenters posts that lack a rebuff from you as tacit approval.  Or if you do actually rebuff them but don’t ban them then it would be “lip service criticism.” 

    Hardly justified, unless someone just really wants to do a bit of rabble rousing.

  5. Watch the video and listen to the laughter and applause, then come back and tell me I’m wrong.

  6. I have.  There is laughter and applause.  It is done by those at the convention.  How does that equate to Republicans are hidden bigots?  It doesn’t.

  7. Those are the movers and shakers, the party leaders, and they keep inviting her back and calling her a ‘good thing’ and then pretending to be outraged when she acts like an ass only to turn around and invite her back and call her a good thing.

  8. In all fairness, I tend to agree with Consigliere.  But I’m reserving final judgement until I see the sales figures for her Coulter’s next book.

    Honestly, I want to see the two (or more) strong political parties.  I used to call myself a Republican.  That ended during the second Reagan Administration.  And it isn’t isn’t going to change until the GOP again becomes the party of small government and fiscal restraint and stops worrying more about what goes on behind bedroom doors than the chicanery committed behind boardroom doors. 

    But I digress. 

    I hope that the Right doesn’t make the mistake of blaming the evil leftist media for the Coulter circus.  They’ve helped to create her:  Live by the camera, die by the camera.  And I think that they need to take some responsibility for her biting now that their spoiled show dog has rabies. 
    If anything good comes of that narcissic wench’s screeching, I hope very much that it’s the GOP’s decision to distance itself from the neocons and theocons that have run its credibility into the ground.

  9. “The majority of Americans are immigrants?” Err yes, lets ask the Sioux, shall we?

    Re Coulter: The IMMEDIATE reaction of the crowd was homophobia.

    The press thought before putting pen to paper. They played the “Who’s the audience” game.  We have plenty of racist and homophobic newspapers over here.  Their editorial always condemns bigotry, but the way they report the news shows a bigoted bias.  Looks like the centrefold of the Illiberals* has been caught out.

    *Illiberal- the opposite to a Liberal

  10. Funny how every time Ann eats a microphone she later back-pedals and labels her depravity a “joke.” In the words of the Brothers Gibb: but I didn’t see that the joke was on me.

    For the record, I have seen a few conservative reprimands of Ann’s latest outburst (notably this one). While some do seem to be genuinely disgusted with Coulter’s tomfoolery, the warm reception that Ann received from the audience (and more disturbingly, from the seemingly upstanding politicians present) presents for all the world to see the not-so latent bigotries present among the ranks of the far Right.

  11. I honestly don’t understand why the right could in logical mind have a problem with people being gay or an immigrant – in the case of homosexuality, it goes against some religous texts but to me there is nothing morally wrong with it and nothing physically wrong in the days of contraception and hygene. I expect some things make their way into religous texts because of health issues back then (like food), but that probably wasn’t due to god and restrictions need not apply now.

    What I do notice though is a certain grade of people actively look for the oppertunity to hate, this is a strange and dangerous force in the world with complete disregard for ethics, that if determined there isn’t much you can do much about – ultimately someone could, if they wanted, simply not care and not be willing to care, to me this is analagous to blind faith, in order to get away from these extremes people need to have some component of willing to accept care/logic of their own accord- or there will be no oppertunity for them to ever move away from the extreme because the care/logic will carry no voice, there will be no foot in the door with which to open the door

    Hypocrasy on being immigrants or other things simply doesn’t matter in the face of hate providing you are not the victim. Being the victim of hate could be what drives someone to look for something else if they do have a care/logic side, but they may simply fight instead, and being hated can be feul for counter-hate

    Paul makes an interesting point – that words can be used in completely different meaning from the literal – for a person not fully aware of the score on an issue this creates unnecessary fear in my view, to go a little off topic I used to think society viewed masturbation as wrong because of the way people used the term ‘wankers’

  12. I honestly don’t understand why the right could in logical mind have a problem with people being gay or an immigrant

    The key is right there in bolded text. Fear and hysteria don’t lend themselves to logic and rationality. There is absolutely nothing logical or rational about homophobia or racism. They are products of fear, and all the rationality in the world doesn’t stand a fighting chance against the forces of fear and superstition.

  13. Ann Coulter has no greater enemy than herself, It’s ignorance ( and we know what they say about it ) to go on public record as a well educated person and make such an intolerant remark. I can only wonder did it just come out of her mouth suddenly, or did she plan on saying it for days ?

    But here is another question. Would she have said it if she had been introduced to the podium by Dick or Lynne Cheney?

  14. Paul: make such an intolerant remark

    She has a niche market among the knuckle-draggers. wink

    Paul: did she plan on saying it for days ?

    Regardless of what I think of her, she’s definitely no dummy.
    I doubt she says anything without giving it a lot of thought at sometime or other and she has such a terrific memory, usually and she has countless little headline grabbers in the vault to bring out when applicable.

    Les: She says what many of them are thinking and they love her for it.

    If that wasn’t true she, the wicked witch of the west (I thought that was a rather clever double entendre wink  ), wouldn’t have the adulation she has from grass roots Republicans.
    The more rational among us can only hope more of the American public can catch up to the world’s opinion.
    The more irrational among you will continue to wonder ‘why does the world hate us’? … and answer incorrectly.

    Consi: There is laughter and applause. It is done by those at the convention. How does that equate to Republicans are hidden bigots? It doesn’t.

    I agree with you. Republicans are not hidden bigots; Republicans are out in the open bigots; those Republicans were all quite open about … not being ‘hidden bigots’.

    Consi: akin … to a drive-by commenter

    You’re using a fairly long bow but … yeah, okay.
    One major problem; Les doesn’t invite the fuckers back for another shot time and again … unless we can make some mileage from the entertainment value at least. Does that make us ‘like’ Ann? Another DE and the answer is: no, cos we don’t rag on towel-heads, niggers or poofters … except for he who will not be mentioned but even he is more restrained that the republican’s Rottweiler.

    Don’t forget, last year, at the same convention, the coultergeist used the term rag(or was it towel)heads to describe the Iraqis.
    To me, and I know I don’t count, this didn’t seem a really successful public relations’ ploy for a high profile representative, of the ‘born to rule elite’ party, of a ‘caring country’, to bestow on a country it invaded ‘to bring peace and democracy to the region’.

    Obviously, the ‘hidden bigots’ either don’t learn from their mistakes, which is damned plausible, or they just don’t give a fuck, which is also, damned plausible, or they agree with everything she says, which is also, damned plausible, or this year’s convention organiser didn’t get any advice from last year’s organiser, which is also, damned plausible, or this year’s organiser did get advice but ignored it, which is also, damned plausible, or they’re all just a buncha thick fucktards and how do you second guess a buncha thick fucktards, which is, on reflection, the most plausible but … toss your own die.

  15. akin … to a drive-by commenter

    Reread it LJ.  I didn’t have the comments of a drive-by commenter in mind.  I had you and a couple of the regulars in mind.  I said it would be like a drive-by commenter attributing those comments by you and a few others to Les.

    Does that make us ‘like’ Ann? Another DE and the answer is: no, cos we don’t rag on towel-heads, niggers or poofters…

    Vituperation of others, even if repackaged with a liberal bent by a crazy Aussie is still bigotry,  just uglier than Coulter.

  16. My mate: I didn’t have the comments of a drive-by commenter in mind.

    I flunked mind-reading.

    My mate: Vituperation of others, even if repackaged with a liberal bent by a crazy Aussie is still bigotry, just uglier than Coulter.

    You are correct and I feel thoroughly ashamed for playing in the gutter and letting Ann make me dirty … but, sir, we were just doing satire.
    O’Reilly (at the 5:42 mark) tries to convince us Coulter and Maher are both satirists.
    Yes. I too did a double take.
    Are there no lengths those pesky, whiter than white, moral crusading, mud-slinging, bottom feeding, conservatives will go to?

    Lotsa nationalities have had adjectives in front of them; South African, West Indian, Crazy Aussie (that’d be me smile ).
    Only one has ever had Ugly.

    By the way I looked up to make sure my guess was correct: vituperation equates to vilification equates to Fat Al bashing.
    (Swoops and lands softly) Pots and kettles anyone?  wink

  17. I wrote it as a factual statement.  To be clear, are you contending that Albert is not fat?

    If you review my posts LJ, they are with a few faults, factually accurate.  I may cut at you here and there but you don’t see me doing what Coulter or you do.  I don’t go off on diatribes filled with venom and calling whole groups of people fucktards,  cocksuckers, fuckwits, an idiot, a fucking clown or by calling them a faggot.  You do, as does Coulter.

    If you are hearing the sound of pots and kettles because of this thread, then I suggest you look in the mirror, my mate.

  18. are you contending that Albert is not fat?

    Not at all.

    Well, we know Fat Albert is not peddling to work.

    Conservatives have nothing to do with Fat Albert’s energy consumption.

    Fat Albert is nothing more than the rich Catholic of old. 

    I just didn’t know ‘Fat’ was his name.  wink

    I don’t go off on diatribes filled with venom and calling whole groups of people …

    Well, not quite like mine, I’ll admit but … well … you do have your favourites … as above.
    By the way, are you suggesting the coulter and I have no class?
    I know we both have balls.

    And I’m pleased you said something negative about one of your party’s most outspoken and most highly visible spokesmen [sic].

  19. The entire episode is like the Simpson’s Halloween Special where the giant advertisements come to life and terrorize Springfield. Eventually, they lose their power because no one pays attention to them. Ann Coulter is the “Lard Lad” of conservative politics. Everything she has done has been in bad taste and for good reason, the more offensive she becomes, the more books she sells and the more media attention she recieves. Typically, when she is interviewed, her opinions on everything from science to politics is given weight by the interviewer and audience not because she is credible, but because she is offensive. She has taken it upon herself in the past to argue against stem cell research, evolution, and the case for Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq. Why? Does she hold any degrees in the fields of science and medicine that would give credit to her arguments? Is she a member of the intelligence community who studied the Iraqi’s capapbility for producing Weapons of Mass Destruction? The answer is, not really. Were she, I might, just might give a two penny fuck what she says, but as she is about as credible as Brad Pitt in “The Devil’s Own”, I couldn’t care less what she has to say. Granted, most people will continue to listen to her, but were major media outlets to take action and simply ban her bigoted ass from television programs where she “poses” as a credible participant, we wouldn’t have a problem with her. Then again, I don’t think we can hope for that as long as Fox News will continue to pander those thrive on sensationalism and hate.

  20. I see it this way, I am fine with people layin some jokes on others, but Coulter is just a Bitch.  The difference between her, and some posters here that go after True Believers, is that the True Believers set themselves up for it by not reading previous posts and comments from this site and coming in like we are a bunch of morons that need to be saved.  Like all we need is a bible thumper to whack us on the head so we wake up saying, “THANK YOU JESUS!  I’M SAVED!!.”

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.