In Support of Ann Coulter

Monday, March 5, 2007 | Kristinn

[kristinn]

It is with growing dismay and frustration that I am watching so many of my friends and acquaintances in the conservative community attack Ann Coulter for her comments pointing out that saying the word 'faggot' can get you sent to a rehabilitation clinic.

That she said it in the context of primping pretty boy Democrat presidential candidate John Edwards has sent conservatives to the fainting couch in an episode of 'why I never!' mass hysteria.

Ann Coulter has walked point for conservatives for almost a decade. She has been assaulted, threatened and stalked. She requires bodyguards for protection. Liberals believe they are justified in physically attacking Ann. I heard one say so at CPAC--not in response to her rehab joke, but because Ann 'insults people.'

Ann has been an early and loyal friend of Free Republic. She is one of the few prominent conservatives who regularly breaks bread with FReepers. Her friendship is now being repayed by FReepers who want her driven out of conservatism.

That so many conservatives want Ann banned from CPAC is a sad indicator of the state of conservatism. It is not Ann Coulter's fault that Republicans lost both houses of Congress. It is not Ann Coulter's fault that President Bush is not popular. Sacrificing Ann Coulter on the altar of political correctness will not win the elections of 2008 nor will it prevent conservatives from being sent to rehab for uttering politically incorrect words and ideas.

After Ann uttered the words that have given so many conservatives the vapors, the line for her booksigning at CPAC was just as long as usual. I know, I was standing in that line. If CPAC attendees were so outraged about Ann's remarks, it was not manifested there. I didn't learn about the controversy until I read about it online later that night.

I spent the next day at CPAC. Ann's remarks were not a hot topic. I know because the only time I heard it talked about was when I brought it up. Those I spoke with about it were not upset.

I do not wish to speak ill of my friends and acquaintances who are dumping on Ann, other than to express my disappointment. I do wish they'd reconsider and stop attacking a friend who has walked point for them. Liberals must be laughing themselves silly as they watch us take out someone they've been wanting to eliminate for years.

[soccermom]

"The issue is how fast the conservatives jump to apologize when liberals demand apologies." There is a difference between "condemning" and "apologizing for". In this case, I think conservatives jumped to condemn Coulter's words (rightly, in my opinion) even before there was an outcry from the left. It isn't about anyone "apologizing" for Ann. She's a big girl. There is a difference between apologizing for someone and "distancing" one's self from someone or holding someone accountable.

How many times have people in this forum and conservative commentators demanded that "good" Muslims condemn the violent behavior of those who are perverting their religion? I don't expect every Muslim to "apologize" for terrorists. But I do expect them to say, "Those people don't represent me and I condemn their actions."

The notion that we must not condemn Ann Coulter, simply because liberals fail to hold their bomb throwers accountable, is childish. It shouldn't be about left or right -- it should be about right or wrong. If you think it is wrong, in the context of political discourse, to call a political opponent a "faggot", that should be your moral framework, regardless of what others "get away with."

Just last week, conservatives were all condemning the Huffington thread where people were wishing Cheney had been killed in the terror attack. Then, P.J. Comix posted a DUmmie Funnies thread in which the Daily Kos denied lefties were wishing Cheney dead and then went on to point to all the times conservatives had wished people dead or said other outrageous things and demanded that conservatives condemn those comments.....as if anything conservatives said excused what their side said about Cheney! The Daily Kos article even addressed the notion of having to "back down" to conservatives by condemning those who wished Cheney dead --- as if the real concern isn't over whether or not the comments were right, but whether or not it was right to "cave".

Both sides have become obstinate, deciding that "my side -- right or wrong" is more important than right or wrong. ENOUGH already! Enough of the childish, "Well, they did it too and why don't they apologize and then I'll condemn this or that." Both sides view it through their own skewed prism. If someone believes another's comments are wrong, he should be willing to say so regardless of what "the other side" does.

This isn't about "free speech". No one is denying Coulter and Maher and whomever else have the right to say what they do without retribution from the government (unless their words are literally treasonous.) This is about decorum and civility. I think people should be civil. If you don't, that is fine. That is your right to defend or even applaud Coulter's uncivil tongue. But the fact that I condemn incivility does not make me any less conservative.

[Melas]

You make a good point about fair weather friends. I on the other hand can bash her with impunity since I was put off by her bellicosity from day one and have been vocal about. I'll never understand what anyone ever saw in her overly bombastic style. IMHO, it's always detracted from the message.

Give me Peggy Noonan any day.

[soccermom]

Okay, so it is great for Coulter to say this at CPAC, but wouldn't even meet the standards for posting on FR:

Please enjoy our forum, but also please remember to use common courtesy when posting and refrain from posting personal attacks, profanity, vulgarity, threats, racial or religious bigotry, or any other materials offensive or otherwise inappropriate for a conservative family audience.

So do you really mean any of this stuff, or is it just put up there to cover yourself?

[listenhillary]

This is about the liberal media taking a joke by ONE person in a meeting and attempting to paint the entire conservative movement as racist homophobic bigots.

Ann is not a racist homophobic bigot. She is being painted as one with glee by the media.

It doesn't matter if Ann handed them the single tidbit they needed. It doesn't matter to the media, they will find something to twist.

If we have to filter every single word out of our mouths and cower in fear of something we say might be misconstrued, apologize every time the media stirs up a hornet's nest of outrage, we might as well admit that we've lost.

Ann Coulter knows the media is just waiting for a good head shot to take her down permanently and shut her up.

Ann is standing tall and telling them to take their best shot.

I stand with Ann Coulter. I am unapologetic, unashamed and quite proud of her.

90% of our domestic media is intent on the descruction of everything I believe in. They are the true enemies of freedom and liberty.

We won't back down.

When they outlaw words, only outlaws will have words.

What use is civility, without freedom and liberty? Do you want a civil, but enslaved society? I'll pass.

[Canedawg]

She described her joke as akin to a "schoolyard taunt".

She's too brilliant and too good to do that.

But she's Ann, and I heart her.

[soccermom]

"This is about the liberal media taking a joke by ONE person in a meeting and attempting to paint the entire conservative movement as racist homophobic bigots." No -- this is about ONE person deliberately throwing a bomb, to once again, make it all about her in such a way that the messages from CPAC were drowned out. She knew what she was doing. She wanted to be provocative and she didn't care.

"Ann is not a racist homophobic bigot. She is being painted as one with glee by the media." Yep it is all the MEDIA's fault! The media has little puppet tool that opens and closes Ann's mouth and then they have a ventriloquist that utters her words for her. I don't know if she's a bigot. I do know that she made a choice to use those words, knowing full well what the reaction would be --- and she doesn't even have the Gibson excuse of being drunk. "If we have to filter every single word out of our mouths and cower in fear of something we say might be misconstrued, apologize every time the media stirs up a hornet's nest of outrage, we might as well admit that we've lost." Again, this isn't about a slip of the tongue or something being misconstrued. She knew what she was going to say. She planned it. She knew the reaction. As has been her habit lately, it was all about calling attention to Ann without regard to how it would impact those she claims to support.

"Ann Coulter knows the media is just waiting for a good head shot to take her down permanently and shut her up. Ann is standing tall and telling them to take their best shot." On the contrary. She knows that every time she stirs up a hornet's nest and gets attention from the media, she sells more books to sycophants and gets more speaking engagements booked. Nothing will ever shut her up and she knows it.

"I stand with Ann Coulter. I am unapologetic, unashamed and quite proud of her." Apparently! So when Ann makes jokes about the deaths of Supreme Court justices or Clinton, don't turn around and whine when someone jokes about killing Cheney. I, on the other hand, will object when either side is uncivil.

"90% of our domestic media is intent on the descruction of everything I believe in. They are the true enemies of freedom and liberty." LOL! 90% huh? Was that in the 2006 census or 2005? And would I find those stats under "enemies of freedom" or "MSM" or what? Spare me the hyperbole!

"We won't back down." Thus proving my point! You sound just like the guy on Daily Kos. Heaven forbid you dare to condemn anything said by your side! Wouldn't want to be perceived as "backing down"

"When they outlaw words, only outlaws will have words." LOL! Are you for real???? You sound like a Daily Show version of conservatives. Get over yourself. This isn't an attempt to "outlaw" words -- though I grant you that is indeed the case in France and Canada. You sound just like the Dixie Chicks. There is a difference between the government coming in and punishing someone for words citizens establishing private standards of decency. Hey, why don't you go tell your little kid to call his teacher a "faggot"? And then, when he gets sent to the principal's office, have him proudly proclaims. "When they outlaw words, only outlaws will have words!" How profound!

"What use is civility, without freedom and liberty? Do you want a civil, but enslaved society? I'll pass." Again, spare me the Dixie Chicks drama. You don't have to surrender freedom in order to be civil. It is called having "manners". People have managed to do it for a long time, without being "enslaved".

[listenhillary]

Regardless if you believe it or not we are in a war for our culture. A single word is not going to lose the war.

We've had enough. You are asking us to fight this war with foam bats while our enemies use bullets. Our enemies get a pass, we get cavity searches.

You can bow your head and pray at the alter of political correctness if you choose.

If it weren't for the media blowing this out of proportion and making it the top news item for the last 3 days, you wouldn't have know or cared. It was not an issue at CPAC.

The media made it the issue.

soccermom indeed.

[soccermom]

Once again, you've summed up the Coult mentality perfectly!

You aren't at all concerned about whether or not Ann's words were appropriate or not. You don't care. You only care to define it as a "war" and, heaven forbid, anyone dare say Ann Coulter's words were inappropriate for to do so would be a "retreat".

You whine about "our enemies" getting "a pass" --- as if that justifies similar behavior on our side. Incidentally, Bill Maher lost a show for calling our military "cowards" and the Dixie Chicks lost their audience --- not because of governmental retribution --- but because of citizens holding them accountable. And, incidentally, their words were covered in -gasp - the media!

"If it weren't for the media blowing this out of proportion and making it the top news item for the last 3 days, you wouldn't have know or cared. It was not an issue at CPAC." Ummmmmm.....actually the first I heard of it was here in FR posting of Michelle Malkin's comments. She was there. Is she now a part of the liberal media, too? This is an issue because Ann made it an issue. She knew exactly what she was doing. If it weren't for the media, Ann Coulter wouldn't have a career. She thrives on this stuff. She needs the controversy, so you can rest, assured, that Ann will be around for a very long time. And if things start to get slow for her again, she can just lob another grenade and watch the media buzz about her.

So you go ahead and proclaim you are proud when Ann calls people "faggots" and "harpies" and jokes about the death of judges and presidents --- but don't ever again cry about the comments of Maher, Franken etc. It's all free speech after all, isn't it?

[listenhillary]

This is an issue because Ann the media made it an issue.

but don't ever again cry about the comments of Maher, Franken etc

They have free speech do they not? Did I miss something?

It's all free speech after all, isn't it?

For a short time, if we are lucky.

[ADSUM]

"In this case, I think conservatives jumped to condemn Coulter's words (rightly, in my opinion) even before there was an outcry from the left."

Why do you think her words were wrong?

"Okay, so it is great for Coulter to say this at CPAC, but wouldn't even meet the standards for posting on FR:

"Please enjoy our forum, but also please remember to use common courtesy when posting and refrain from posting personal attacks, profanity, vulgarity, threats, racial or religious bigotry, or any other materials offensive or otherwise inappropriate for a conservative family audience.

So do you really mean any of this stuff, or is it just put up there to cover yourself?"

Again, you make comments without stating your reason or logic. Is your opinion more important than objectively looking at the total picture?

You seem to want everything to fit into your perfect world. You and others should not condemn Ann Coulter's words, but you can certainly disagree with them, and should give your reasons for doing so.

Conservatives should be able to discuss and defend their principles with reason and logic. Ann is very capable of explaining her reasoning, and if people listen and understand they would see the positive logical thoughts behind her comments. I disagree that she has an uncivil tongue. I find her very thought provoking, but others react emotionally without comprehending what is really being said. People can still disagree with her even if they have no rational logic to support their disagreement.

Live in the real world, and change it as a leader by doing the right things.

[jetson]

Anne is just weeding out the wussies.

[Leftism is Mentally Deranged]

Ann is the victim of the double standard. Whenever a liberal indulges in hate speech nothing happens. Whenever a conservative or religious person says or does anything that the left can distort into "hate speech", the conservative is excoriated, xxx-reamed (a form of colonoscopy).

Also, there is no freedom of speech. What this is moving toward is complete and total suppression of thoughts and/or speech that certain specially-privileged protected groups dislike, with jail time for "offenders". It would be easier to take if it were applied equally, but it won't be, because of the double standard.

[griswold3]

I hear those comments will soon land you in indoctrination camps. er, I mean rehab.

What a bunch of maroons. What a gull a bull.

[Redcloak]

John Bergstrom has diagnosed Ann's problem...

[listenhillary]

My new list of forbidden words. Someone might have their feelings hurt and we can't as a society allow that to happen.

Stupid
Retarded
Moron
Idiot
Neanderthal
Ignorant
Sh t for brains
Fat
Homely
Ugly
Grotesque
Gross
Wuss
Pansy
Slut
Creepy
Insane

ANYONE directing these words at another individual must pay penance by checking into rehab. We all know now that merely attending rehab under the professional eyes of the psychotherapist will absolve all sins and everything will be sweetness and light. We'll all live happily ever after.

The end.


(/sarcasm)

[taxesareforever]

But the fact that I condemn incivility does not make me any less conservative.

There is such a thing as condemning incivilitiy and falling on the sword just because the opposing party tells one to. I believe it is just as uncivil of conservatives to live by the dictates of a reprehensible party (the demorats)and standing firm on ones own principles. If the so-called conservative has to get his bearings from demands of the demorats he is no conservative and I will stand by that statement and he will not get my vote. We have enough of these wusses in Congress now and we definitely don't need one in the White House.

[soccermom]

"Why do you think her words were wrong?" Because they were a personal attack -- they had no relevance to Edward's policies.

"Again, you make comments without stating your reason or logic. Is your opinion more important than objectively looking at the total picture?" I am looking at this objectively. Jim Robinson has a higher standard for decorum on Free Republic -- or at least that is the disclaimer on his site -- than he has for Ann Coulter at a CPAC convention. (We're not talking about a backyard BBQ. We're talking about a public forum where our prospective presidential nominees are being featured.)

"You seem to want everything to fit into your perfect world. You and others should not condemn Ann Coulter's words, but you can certainly disagree with them, and should give your reasons for doing so." Why can't I condemn them? If I think they are incendiary, I can condemn them, just as anyone can. "To disagree" suggests there is a debate about the subject matter -- as if we are debating whether or not Edwards is a "faggot." To condemn is to say this isn't a matter of disagreement -- "faggot", in this context, is an crude word which should be condemned as a part of public discourse.

"Ann is very capable of explaining her reasoning, and if people listen and understand they would see the positive logical thoughts behind her comments. I disagree that she has an uncivil tongue. I find her very thought provoking, but others react emotionally without comprehending what is really being said." We are all well aware of Ann's "logical thoughts". Yes, we are all well aware that this was a commentary on political correctness -- which could have easily been made without taking a personal shot at Edwards. Amazing the kinds of words you can pass off under the guise of "logical thought." If you don't consider words like "raghead", "faggot", "harpies" etc. to be uncivil, that is entirely your right. I'm sure the teachers must love the colorful language of your kids.

My standards, and it seems the standards of most of the conservative pundits on this issue, are a bit higher on what is considered "civil".

[ReignOfError]

First, who said anything about killing people?

You started in with the overheated "war" rhetoric. What do you think happens in a war?

I'm talking about calling a spade a spade.

Unless you know something about Edwards that I don't, Coulter was doing nothing of the kind. She was engaging in schoolyard taunts, and anyone who considers that an appropriate tactic when discussing important issues is someone who shouldn't be taken seriously.

Second, I don't want "bring people to my side" by tip-toeing through the PC mine-field of nonsense.

When did it become "PC" to aver that some words should not be used in polite company? Free Republic is hardly ground zero for political correctness, but I'm more careful to avoid profanity here than on just about any other online forum I post to. Because this community, like any, has standards, and breaching them is rude.

The only people I see that you bring "to your side" by not using the word faggots, is PC sensitive weaklings.

A great many Americans see "faggot" in the same light as a racial epithet. I almost typed in a Lenny Brice-style litany of those, but decided against it. A fair number of people, even people who don't like homosexuals (or John Edwards for that matter), or who don't care much one way or the other, are likely to be put off by someone who makes mean-spirited comments, and by people who applaud them.

Take Coulter;s remark word for word, but substitute "n----r" and Barack Obama, or "s--c" and Bill Richardson, or "w-p" and Rudy Guiliani, or "k--e " and Joe Lieberman, or "k---t" and Arnold Schwarzenegger, so on and so forth. Would those comments have been acceptable? Would vocal disapproval have been "PC run amok?"

There are so many people who have given up on the political system, because no-body wants to truely take a stand and lead. It reminds of Braveheart where Wallace is imploring the leader to just lead. Ann is leading, maybe with her head, but at least she calls it as she sees it.

Leaders point out problems and advocate solutions. Playground taunts are not leadership.

[soccermom]

OK, but you're missing the point. Lots of conservatives condemned her comments almost immediately -- independent of any demands by the left -- because they genuinely considered her words to be inappropriate. I agree that conservatives shouldn't react simply to placate to the left. What stuns me is how many people assume that a conservative can't possibly consider personal attacks to be inappropriate. I don't need to be told by the left that what she said was inappropriate. I can see that for myself. If I expect my children to be civil, why can't I expect a woman, who is older than me and Ivy-league-educated, to behave in a civil manner? It is one thing to stand up to the demands of the left, if you don't agree with them. It is quite another thing to be obstinate and refuse to condemn something, knowing full well you would jump on it if a liberal had said it, simply because you don't want to be dictated to. If you genuinely applaud the use of personal attacks then, by all means, applaud her. I don't. So I won't. And I like to think that conservatives are nice, civil people.

[ReignOfError]

This isn't about "free speech". No one is denying Coulter and Maher and whomever else have the right to say what they do without retribution from the government (unless their words are literally treasonous.) This is about decorum and civility. I think people should be civil. If you don't, that is fine. That is your right to defend or even applaud Coulter's uncivil tongue. But the fact that I condemn incivility does not make me any less conservative.

Amen. To the best of my knowledge, no one is calling for Coulter or Maher to be imprisoned for their dumb-assed comments. But is at least prudent, and at most an obligation, for folks who find those comments offensive to say "S/he does not speak for me," as we expect Muslims to repudiate "their own" radicals (even when their radicalism is only rhetorical and not violent), or any other group to repudiate the extremists in their midst.

Of course, no politician ever has political calculations far from his mind. The phrase "Sistah Souljah moment" has become shorthand for repudiating one's "own" radicals to cement one's mainstream credentials.

In 1992, when Sistah Souljah -- an aspiring rapper and Public Enemy hanger-on -- suggested that young black men should start shooting white folks instead of each other, that maybe the media would pay more attention that way, Bill Clinton raced to the front to condemn her comments. In so doing, he staked out a position opposing the most radical elements of the left.

Coulter has provided conservatives with a similar opportunity to stake out a moderate position by repudiating a dumb and hateful comment. As a political matter, they just about have to do so, especially in a close primary race.