Replies

"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.

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.

"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.

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.

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.