Sunday, March 04, 2007

Conservatives I can respect

Apparently Ann Coulter does not speak for all Republicans. Not that I didn't know that already, but it's still nice to hear every once in a while.

See, apparently Coulter hasn't gotten the memo that her humor, well, just isn't funny. Now, I sympathize here, I really do. I've been told pretty much the same thing by a number of people over the years, not the least by my own family. And to be fair, sometimes part of the joke is the angry reaction. But when you spend much more time and energy defending or explaining the joke than it actually took to come up with it, it's clear the humor has failed. Sorry, let it go, move on.

Ann Coulter made the comment Friday while speaking to GOP activists attending the annual Conservative Political Action Conference.

"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. So I think I'll just conclude here and take your questions," Coulter said.

At first her audience seemed shocked, but then many started to clap.


That's right. Because they're sheep. Was Ann's comment even part of an argument? I mean, I'm not saying that every "Bush is dumb" comment is comedic gold, but at least there's a possible argument there- dumb Prez equals bad decisions, equals threat to nation, etc. What's the argument in calling Edwards a fag? Is he going to gay us all up? Or maybe she's saying that he'll fight for same-sex marriage? I have no idea.

Coulter, of course, has gone for her usual defense.

Ms. Coulter, asked for a reaction to the Republican criticism, said in an e-mail message: “C’mon, it was a joke. I would never insult gays by suggesting that they are like John Edwards. That would be mean.”

There's something really wrong with this lady.

All three front-running GOP candidates (nothing from Newt? Shocking) have repudiated Coulter's comments, and apparently even some conservative rank-and-filers are realizing that press like this isn't good for business. I'm quite fond of this one.

Enough is enough. I am sick to death of this woman leading people to believe that she speaks for conservatives. She doesn’t speak for me. And if you believe that she speaks for you, or if you were one of those mouth breathers who applauded when she used that disgusting epithet deliberately to hurt other people (not just John Edwards), then you are hopelessly beyond the pale yourself and would do well to examine exactly what you believe a conservative is and what is acceptable political discourse.

Anyone who reads this site knows I am not a wallflower when it comes to lashing out at my political foes. But there are limits. And Coulter regularly crosses them – not because she doesn’t know any better but because she deliberately uses hate language to get a rise out of the left and get the rest of us talking about her.

I will no longer be a willing cog in her publicity machine. And if we conservatives really care about our movement and the people who represent it, then we will do everything in our power to limit the exposure of this ghastly person who sells hate like Frosted Flakes and laughs at all of us while carrying her loot all the way to the bank.

For those keeping score: THIS is a conservative I can respect.

The replies to this guy in the comments and the other blogs he posts to are particularly instructive. Some accuse Coulter's conservative critics of "splitting the movement" or being faux-publicans. One guy says he thought the comment was funny and explains the joke to the rest of us.

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.

Got it. Somebody does his hair and make-up (unlike all other politicians), so he's a fag. And because he's a trial lawyer he's untrustworthy (as opposed to billionaire oilmen), and since Edwards never said he WASN'T gay, he very well might be gay, and so calling him a faggot is fair game. Brilliant. Of course, this genius also confuses sex with a woman using a prosthetic wang for male-on-male sex, so his judgment might not be top of the line. (Sort of like how having sex with a woman wearing a Halloween costume of a cat is bestiality?)

Then there's this guy who tried to argue that faggot isn't really a big deal:

1.) Why is everyone jumping down Coulter’s throat about calling Edward’s a faggot? Coulter was making a JOKE, and she was also making a clever one given the circumstances with Conservatives going to rehab for saying the same thing. It had bad delivery but it was a JOKE.

2.) An insult to homosexuals everywhere? The people screaming “We’re here, we’re queer” can’t handle being called faggots? I know it’s a ’slur’ but it’s the same thing as black people being able to call each other ‘nigga’ while any white person who mutters the word, even jokingly, will be castrated by the media.

3.) Since when is faggot the new f-word? People saying “f*** Bush” get half as much attention as this.

That's right, slurs are ok because this guy decided they were ok. George Allen should have tried this back in November. Let's see this blogger call any black person, liberal or conservative a nigger, and see what happens. Forget the media, Bill Cosby would kick your ass, you idiot.

And the f-word? People have been pissed about faggot for a long time. Republicans curse, too, doofus.

Then there are some conservatives who accuse liberals of selective outrage.

But let’s look at the comments of another political commenter… from the other side. Bill Maher, known for his outrageously stupid comments said on his HBO show this week that if Cheney would’ve been assassinated, the world would be a safer place.

“I have zero doubt that if Dick Cheney was not in power, people wouldn’t be dying needlessly tomorrow.
[…]
I’m just saying if he did die, other people, more people would live. That’s a fact.”

Now compare the outrage from the Left between Coulter’s dumb joke about John Edwards’ sexuality and Maher’s “fact” that the world would be better off if the assassination against the Vice President had succeeded.


I'll bite. I think Bill Maher's comment is factually incorrect (Cheney dying changes nothing on the ground, and probably only makes things worse, as it gives hawks in the govt. a marytr and rallying cry to avenge him) and an oversimplification. That said, he isn't rejoicing over Cheney's almost-death, he's making two political arguments that I disagree with: A- without Cheney there would be no war, and B- if Cheney died tomorrow, the war would slow. I think these both give Cheney too much credit and ignore the fact that at this point the war is bigger than any single personality.

This is not an attempt at a joke. This is not Maher defending the attack. This is not even, technically, Maher wishing death on Cheney. He is postulating on what the effects of his death would be. I admit that I might feel differently about this if someone said it about a Democrat, but I think a large part of it is in the delivery- if he had actually said, "the world would be better", it would be different. Do I find it offensive? Not really. More like bad taste, a little morbid. Not super-outrageous, but that's also because the transcript doesn't make it sound like he was jumping up and down or saying, "shoot! they missed", or, similarly, making comments that amount to encouraging someone to do Al Qaeda's work for them (hint, moser). It would be different if Maher was gloating or joking about it- I would find that more offensive.

For the record, I have no problem saying that Maher, a TV comedian, is far from the best representative for me or my political opinions (of course, as an entertainer, that really isn't his job). But I find it interesting that Maher is being compared to a supposedly serious syndicated columnist and legitimized media pundit who regularly dabbles in atrocious humor and fairly disgusting hyperbole. I don't expect the same degree of professionalism from the two positions, and find it a little concerning that Coulter's professional integrity seems to regularly dip below Maher's.

1 comment:

Daniel Greenfield said...

ann coulter speaks for republicans, in the same way that al sharpton speaks for democrats

that said, her comment would be mild considering the stuff that got hurled at bush on a regular basis, I'm thinking some whoopi goldberg routines for sure

and yes bill maher was suggesting we'd be better off if cheney was dead... by contrast what coulter did amounted to a typical playground insult these days