Posted on 03/05/2007 12:51:58 AM PST by kristinn
Many republicans react to incidents like these just like Pavlov's dog - no one need say anything, the tone has been set and the party faithful tuck their tails at the slightest whiff of controversy.
All this complaining reeks of moral posturing anyway and its premise is an acceptance (made manifest by an ultra-sensitivity) of the characterizations of the right the left has made for years.
If you do not know the context in which Ann Coulter writes than I can understand why you think her statement is uncivil. However, I have read all her books and I read her weekly column and I understand her writings and because of that I do not and will not take offense from it. Anyone who does, is acting "holier than thou" or appeasing to the dems. That's my story.
Many conservative commentators were shocked when conservatives readers roared back on the conservative's forums and blogs in support of Ann.
It is a Pavlovian response. The MSM raises their newspapers to swat the offensive conservative and there is a collective cringe by the politicians. After many beatings, the trainer sometimes regrets overstepping the boundery too often.
Agreed. Ann may have helped Edwards in the short term. The difference, though, is I don't think you found too many liberals rallying to Sistah Soljah's defense. That is the tightrope our GOP candidates face. God forbid they repudiate Ann Coulter and be considered not a "true" conservative!
I'm well aware of the context in which Ann writes. She is witty and acerbic. Although, I don't think her first? book was like that. I think it was called "High Crimes and Misdemeanors" or something like that. (I'd have to go down and sift through a pile in the basement to get the exact title.) It was a well-argued, factually-based book indicting Bill Clinton. As I recall, that one was not her typical biting wit, but based more on her legal knowledge. The argument that she is being "taken out of context", is starting to carry as much water as "The dog ate my homework." You can call Ann's words many things, but "civil" does not come to mind. Even Sean Hannity, who predictably defends her only by pointing to the harsh words of others, acknowledges that she is acerbic. That is her style. Now again, "your story" can be whatever you want it to be. If you don't mind or even appreciate her style, go ahead. Just don't pretend it wasn't a personal attack, which it clearly was, or that those who condemn it can't be conservative and sincere.
Coutler disembowels her critics nicely enough on her own. Besides, I appreciate and totally agree with the actual intent of her comment, so why would I condemn it?
Anyway, the world doesn't need to hear my 'condemnation' of anybody - heaven knows I'm as guilty as anyone of the occasional offensive comment. The difference between me and many of Ann's detractors is I understand that.
Yes. That's what a war means. Words have meanings, right?
So what are the casualties from the culture war?
It isn't a war.
That was my point.
So you put forth the proposition that there's a "war" and that Coulter is somehow a general in it. Whom has she led? What has she planned? What has she won? All she's done is blurt out offensive epithets every now and then, offending some people and delighting others who like to see them offended. That is not leadership. That is Tourette's Syndrome.
She was telling a J O K E!
It wasn't funny. It was like the entire career of Andrew "Dice" Clay. It's shock, it's mean, it adds nothing, it's useless, and it's calculated to offend so that you can then wave the victim flag when someone gets offended. "It's a joke" is not a defense. It's still tasteless.
And if you're going to continue to define "real conservatives" as those who want to be identified with that kind of thing, you're going to find yourself all alone at that party.
It was a HUMOROUS personal attack. That's Ann's style. Those that condemn it might as well be linked arm in arm with the "party of ethics" (democrats). Wouldn't it be nice if as many of you, who call themselves conservatives, would create such a furor over the daily personal attacks that are leveled by the libs at consertives? Sometimes, no, make that many times, it appears that this country has one party only, and it isn't the GOP. Sad, truly sad.
Unlike Clay who throws out disgusting sexual f-bombs, Ann throws out commentary for a reason. Your post is a perfect example of what she was able to accomplish.
Kinda like when Arnold had to apologize for his girlyman phrase. Did that one offend you too?
Pray for W and Our Troops
I can say "nigger." I can even type it. I can also type mick, spic, wop, daygo, beaner, bohunk, chink, slope, gook, slant, cracker, coon-ass, sambo, hajji, coon, towel-head, rag-head, camel jockey, redskin, faggot, dyke, and all kinds of other rude words. Using them is not an act of courage. It's just rude, and does not earn the medal you want to pin on Ann Coulter.
Watch MTV once. People call each other nigger all the time.
I do not intend to vote for any of those people. I do not intend to vote for anyone who supports them or courts their support. You do realize that there's a difference between entertaining people and governing them, right? If Ann Coulter were a rapper, I couldn't give a damn whm she calls what. But she was the closing speaker for a group of people who want to win election and run the government.
In the real world people get called names all the time. Tough people roll their eyes and throw some back at 'em.
And then they don't vote for them. It's really very simple. Winning elections requires attracting people. Repelling people is not a productive strategy.
Weak people cry to their PC mommies and seek therapy. I bet you support hate-crime legislation.
Yes, I do. Do you believe that when teenaged punks spray-paint swastikas on a synagogue, the teens should be congratulated for their courage and the Jews should be told to get over it?
Yes. The real world doesn't discuss issues using Ivy-league preapproved language. Ann is a real world person. Apparently, you are not.
Apparently, to you, "keepin' it real" means being rude and abusive. in a couple of paragraphs, you've gonr from decrying gangsta rap culture to embracing it.
A great many Americans liberals see "faggot" in the same light as a racial epithet.
There. I fixed it for you.
It wasn't broken.
Would you be pleased if your child called a classmate a faggot? Would you pat him on the back and buy him a cookie? I don't think it's unreasonable to ask at least as much of our political leaders as we ask of our third-graders.
Watch what happens if someone like Gingrich uses Coulter as a spokesperson.
I've never seen what happens when you tie a brick to an anchor, but I could venture a guess. My guess is that it won't float.
Sensitive Ivy leaguers, like you, will cling to Rudy, but the grassroots will flock to a straight talker.
Could you pack a few more assumptions in one sentence?
I'm not particularly sensitive. Call me a faggot, a nigger, a wop, or whatever you like. I'll laugh and call you an idiot. But no one has ever won an election by building a coalition of me.
Ivy-leaguer? Not quite.
Cling to Rudy? I'd rather not stand that close.
"The grassroots will flock to a straight talker?" History suggests otherwise. Smooth talkers beat straight talkers most of the time, at least since Truman beat Dewey.
Clay and Coulter both push the envelope for a reason. The same reason, in fact: It sells.
Your post is a perfect example of what she was able to accomplish.
What she accomplished was to convince me that she's a mean person with a juvenile sense of humor. Big win, there. I don't doubt that she's a smart woman -- Jerry Springer is a smart man. And somewhere along the way, each reached a calculated decision in terms of what they could sell.
Kinda like when Arnold had to apologize for his girlyman phrase. Did that one offend you too?
It didn't offend me. I thought it was dumb. First of all, because implying that feminine = weak and stupid is a dumbassed move when most of your constituents have two X chromosomes, but more so because it reinforced the belief that he couldn't articulate a political message more complicated than one of his old movie lines (or in the "girly men" case, a TV parody of his old movie lines).
All things being equal, I'd rather vote for a grown-up.
The paint bucket and brush are in her own hands. The media did not put the words in her mouth.
Because she used a word she is a racist homophobic bigot? Let him that is without sin cast the first stone.
"That is not leadership. That is Tourette's Syndrome."
ROFLOL!!!!!
"I've never seen what happens when you tie a brick to an anchor..." ROFLOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Me Too. Coulter '08!!
Pray for W and Our Troops
Hold accountable? What a joke. There is no acccountability in government. And besides, Ann Coulter is not employed by the government. Are you appointing certain people to be authorized spokespeople for the GOP? If you are, what are your guidelines? So if I say something that is in your mind derogatory are you going to demand an apology? If you are you got your work cut out for yourself because there are millions of people who may be saying something which may be derogatory to you. I don't envy your job as GOP word and words master meister in charge of selecting who should be chastised. Besides, who says your opinion is right? Everyone has an opinion and yours certainly is not going to agree with everyone. So enjoy your own selective criticism because I won't.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.