Jules Crittenden, among other bloggers, writes today about the latest Ann Coulter outrage, this time for calling John Edwards the “F” word (Sean Hackbarth has the audio here).
My feelings on Ann Coulter are well known among my readers, so knowing how I feel about AC should give people a stong indication about how I feel about her latest verbal bomb thrower. After reading the reactions of many other rightie blogs in the blogosphere over the comment, I know I’m not alone.
What I want to focus on is the Nutroots hypocritical foaming at the mouth outrage over her remarks (you can see some of the links on that here) and as usual calling for the right en masse to condemn her. Even DNC Chair Howard Dean has gotten in on the act.
These are some of the same people who went ballistic when John Edwards now-former bloggers’ extremely nasty and acerbic comments they posted at their blogs were plastered at several well-known sites for all to see, to the point there were calls from Catholic groups for Edwards to fire them. He lamely did not, after accepting their ‘non-apology apology’ for the comments, but a few days later both bloggers resigned, citing their unwillingness to have their every little word scrutinized (aww - it’s tough being in the big time, isn’t it?). Now, I’m sure you all remember how the Nutroots cheered like mad dogs when Edwards decided he wasn’t going to let them go. It was a ‘victory for free speech!’ they cried, and a ’smack down of the right and religious fanatics!’
In other words, the cries of condemnation for the remarks of Edwards’ former bloggers from their own website were lone voices in the wilderness. The people complaining the most about their comments were bloggers on the right, and Catholic groups. The left was busy wailing about how two of their favorite Nutroots bloggers were having their ‘free speech rights’ trampled on. Strangely, the same rule doesn’t apply to Coulter as far as they are concerned. Marcotte, and others, should be allowed to go on with their hateful tirades without being criticized, while Coulter’s remarks deserve no less than BLANKET CONDEMNATION.
What was the reaction from the Nutroots over Daily Kos/Huffington Post hero Mike Stark’s making it his life’s mission to stalk prominent conservatives every chance he gets? OUTRAGE that one of his more violent episodes was stopped midstream by alert Senator Allen staffers. Here were some examples of the Nutroots response to the tackling of Stark by those staffers:
Think Progress posted this little tidbit in their “Corrupt Establishment” section:
Stark is not, as CNN reported, a “protester.” He is a constituent who was trying to ask Allen a question
So I just had a longer interview with Mike Stark, the man who was thrown to the ground today by staffers for Senator George Allen for asking their boss a couple of questions.
Stark the stalker is so highly looked upon by the left that he was hired by an Air America radio show to be a reporter on their show.
Why bring up old Stark incidents now? Because the same day Ann Coulter made her condemnation-worthy remarks that the left are calling for blood over, Mike Stark the stalker was busy doing what he does best, and this time it was in a picture with Michelle Malkin. Now, Allah reports that Michelle didn’t know who he was at the time, but all the same, it’s creepy and scary the way that this fanatic operates. Now, is the reaction from the left to Stark’s latest stalking incident anywhere close to their flipping out over Coulter’s comments? Why no.
Simply put, there’s no reaction whatsover. But I’d bet that very soon, we’ll see posts from lefty bloggers complimenting Mike on how “clever” he was to even get into CPAC in the first place.
This is yet another legendary example of the far left’s patented ability to stand out as the absolute biggest hypocrites on the planet by once again not practicing what they preach. The right condemns their own, and condemns the left when they get out of line, but the left sees fit only to condemn the right, while routinely praising stalkers and potty mouthed bloggers on their side.
That is why when the left starts their outrage campaigns by calling for “the right” to condemn another conservative, I just chuckle. For those of you on the left who think you’ve scored a victory because so many ‘rightie bloggers’ have supposedly ‘caved’ to your demands for condemnation of Coulter’s comments, you need to take a cold shower, because the condemnation had nothing to do with your stupid demands and everything to do with the right holding their own side accountable for outrageous remarks/actions, something you guys have demonstrated once again you don’t have the ability, willingness, nor honesty to do. Lying hypocrites.
PM Update I: It figures that the HuffPo would give the stalker a sounding board to brag about his misadventures. All too often, the Democratic party reminds me of just how appropriate their party symbol is.
PM Update II: Bryan Preston has more thoughts on Ann’s CPAC comments.
Others blogging about this: Glenn Reynolds, Dean Barnett, John Hawkins, Rick Moran, ST reader Karl, AJ Strata, Gay Patriot, Ed Driscoll, Brennan at The Political Pit Bull, Bob Owens, Captain Ed, Blog For All, Charmaine Yoest, Betsy Newmark, Blue Crab Boulevard, Joe Gandelman, Flopping Aces, James Joyner, seejanemom, Decision ‘08, Jammie Wearing Fool
| Email This Post | Print This |
Who are the potty mouths?
By an 18 to 1 margin it is lefties. And it would’ve been much bigger a gap if it wasn’t for people quoting Marcotte on the right.
Comment by Baklava @ 3/3/2007 - 10:46 am
Hey, always looking for smart conservatives (and liberals if there are any) to come read and comment on my blog…here is what I had to say about Coulter today:
Two points:
1. Do all Democratic candidates have to denounce every hollywood liberal and every other liberal moron who says the only reason our troops are in the military is because they are stupid, or that our troops are Nazi’s (yes, he said it no matter how much kool-aid you want to drink) or that our troops are like Pol Pot, or that GWB is a Nazi and worse that Hitler, or that the only way you’ll see black people at a GOP convention is if you look at the wait staff, or, or, or, or…
For every one stupid thing Ann Coulter says, we can find about 75 stupid liberal comments.
2. Why do PC liberals think we have a constitution right to never be offended? I read a story two days ago (can’t remember where so I can’t link it) where two boys made fun of a Mormon girl in school asking her if she had 18 moms. Her response was, “That’s so gay” SHE got in trouble for hate speech, the boys did not get in trouble at all. Certain people seem to be given this special protection against every having to hear anything they don’t like. Sorry, I’m here to tell you that you have NO constitution right to be protected against things you don’t like.
Do you notice how bold some liberals are getting about this topic lately. Algore said that there should be no reporting on anything that goes against the stupid global warming theories he puts out. Al, sounds like another liberal professing his love for communism. When liberals feel safe in public they let their true communistic feelings out. Let me tell you something, it is the PC liberals who are against the first amendment and against open and honest discussion about anything they don’t like.
Was Ann Coulter stupid for saying that…yes. I think her point was my point, that you go to jail for hurting people’s feelings nowadays, but why do we have to have a national uproar because she said a WORD. We don’t get mad when thousands of illegals come across our boarder to ruin our country. We don’t get mad when other countries give weapons to our enemies so they can kill our troops. But we get mad when people say words.
Comment by The Game @ 3/3/2007 - 11:59 am
Maybe Ann was just calling him wooden.
Too bad the Mormon girl didn’t reply “Well, I may have 10 moms but at least I know who my father is.”
Comment by Severian @ 3/3/2007 - 12:17 pm
Why are people upset that the lovely Miss Coulter was referring to Senator Edwards as a piece of firewood?
Our friends on the left think that it’s perfectly acceptable for them to use foul language, but heaven forfend that someone on the right does so!
Comment by Dana @ 3/3/2007 - 1:37 pm
I think in the bigger picture we see the real issue the same ST
Ann’s remarks aside, it is the hypocrisy on the left that is the most irritating.
Comment by karl @ 3/3/2007 - 3:41 pm
Source unknown, probably Mwalimu Daudi channeling JFK again
Comment by Mwalimu Daudi @ 3/3/2007 - 5:24 pm
Each side has its clowns; Ann Coulter is ours.
At least she’s better looking than Michael Moore!
Comment by Dana @ 3/3/2007 - 5:36 pm
I’m confused: is John Edwards a bundle of sticks or a cigarette?
Comment by william bonin @ 3/3/2007 - 6:00 pm
I dont see her as a down, I see her as the rebel player, who plays the game by the other teams rules.
The conservatives, probably because they tend to have real values and morals, tend to frown on her, but in reality that is all she is.
I may not always agree with her comments, but sometimes I am glad she has the balls to say them when so few others do.
Comment by karl @ 3/3/2007 - 6:03 pm
Where’s the nutroot outrage to Bill Maher’s remarks? Hmmm….the sound of crickets chirping in the air.
Comment by Chuck @ 3/3/2007 - 6:04 pm
I’m sorry. I’m not in the least bit offended or embarrassed by Coulter’s comments. I think she’s just baiting the left with such remarks. It’s interesting to see how quickly they jump on them, too. But she didn’t actually call Edwards a faggot, and that’s how a lib would respond, were it a lib saying such things. She only mentioned that she can’t speak of him, because using the word “faggot” would require rehab. Yeah, it sounds like she was gonna call him that, but as she opened the floor for questions, there were no reports that anyone asked her if she was indeed calling Edwards a fag. I think it’s quite possible that she was making a referrence to the current practice of seeking professional help for one’s “latent hatred” for using slang and slurs. But mostly, I think she did it to bait the left and it seemed she snagged a few from the right as well. Let’s all thicken up the skin a bit, shall we?
Comment by Marshall Art @ 3/3/2007 - 8:18 pm
It was clearly a dig at the Isaiah Washington/TR Knight Greys Anatomy snafu.
And a dig at the Edwards campaign blogger scandal.
People need to see what she does in a wider context. Yes, doing it at CPAC is a sensitive issue, as it places the stigma against all conservatives unless they denounce it.
But at the root of it, she is still covered by free speech and I am still glad she is taking it to the liberals using their own methods.
Comment by karl @ 3/4/2007 - 12:18 am
It is a proven fact that worse things, incredibly worse and vulgar things, have been said about republicans and the President - and I find this fake outrage just something the left are willing to grab a hold of to try and paint the whole party. Ann isn’t a senator or congressman, and yet Dean is increasing Global Warming by pumping increased amount of hotair about republican candidates need to denounce her…why? Do they denounce every commentator that calls republicans nazis, war criminals, murderers, completely corrupt, or even PUBLICALLY wishing for the death of the Vice President of the US as Maher did?
It is also incredibly foolish to think that Ann is in anyway associated with the republican party or drives it’s politics. In a comparison, it is similiar to saying Al Franken or Jerry Springer represents the Democrats and drives the ideology that represents their side. It is foolish way of thinking one person represents an entire party.
It seems the left has selective hearing / outrage it seems.
Has any of the same outrage been applied to Rosie, Joy Behar, Kieth Olberman, Tim Robbins, Barbara Striesand, Bill Maher…and the list can continue.
At least republicans will actually stand up and say, Ann that was uncalled for or distasteful, where the left will applaud their own and say it is their free speech to say and do what they want.
It is indeed pot calling kettle black.
Do I like what she said, no, not overly. Her attempts at humor and berevity are sometimes too strained for my liking….but do I think she should be censored because I don’t like what she has to say?
No I do not.
Just the same as I didn’t like what Whoopie did. I found it vulgar and distatesful…but within her rights as an American to voice and do so. I don’t have to like it, and in my own way I can speak out against it stating my displeasure but I would NEVER advocate saying she doesn’t have that right.
Just because we don’t like what is said by someone doesn’t mean they do not have the right to say it.
Comment by sanity @ 3/4/2007 - 12:23 am
Ho hum … Our Lady of the Hairflip says something barmy again.
Move along, please. Nothing to see here.
Comment by Leslie @ 3/4/2007 - 10:04 am
I’m amused by Bryan Preston’s tantrum:
“…what’s the big headline coming out of CPAC? Is it that Josh Sparling won a much-deserved award? Is it that conservatives remain committed to the war for freedom against terrorism? Is it that this post-blowout CPAC was the largest CPAC ever? Was it that I got to be on a teevee show?”
This is in Hotair’s 3rd post about Coulter’s one line. Who’s making Coulter the headline?
Mebbe Bryan oughtta butch up a little bit.
Comment by stoo @ 3/4/2007 - 10:30 am
I thought his post was spot on. Certainly you agree the comment should have been addressed? Allah, who wasn’t at CPAC, blogged about it because it was news. Bryan, who was at CPAC, blogged about it to give additional thoughts. Michelle, who was also at CPAC, did a Vent segment where she mentioned the comment briefly in a five minute segment with Sean Hannity where they also discussed CPAC and the candidates overall.
And you ask who’s making Coulter the headline? Who do you expect but no other than the MSM? The LAT has a story up as does the NYT. And the AP had one up yesterday.
In the meantime, the liberal selective outrage continues.
Comment by Sister Toldjah @ 3/4/2007 - 11:12 am
Quite frankly, no. I don’t think Ann Coulter saying something warranted commentary — certainly not to the degree her comment has been covered.
To quote the most under-read blogger in the history of blogging:
It’s. What. She. Does. Ignore her.
Where do you think the MSM got the story that thy’re running? I posit they got it from the OUTRAGED!!!1!!1! bloggers on the right.
Comment by stoo @ 3/4/2007 - 11:37 am
You think members of the MSM were not in attandance at CPAC, stoo? I mean, the AP ran this story yesterday early, when bloggers were just getting warmed up. The MSM is always, always waiting for Ann to make an infamous comment so they can use it to tar all conservatives, and as usual, she did not disappoint.
And on something being “what a person does” and thus not worthy of comment, I guess conservatives should ignore the far left’s (like Michael Moore, Bill Maher, etc) idiocy as well, because ‘that’s what they do’? If so, then probably 50% of my posts at this blog I should not have ever written.
We get rightly outraged when the left goes over the top, and I never see a single complaint when the right calls them to task in several posts, but when the right takes their own to task, all of a sudden it’s wrong and the equivalent of having a tantrum and being too PC?
Comment by Sister Toldjah @ 3/4/2007 - 11:56 am
Quite often, what Moore says could affect the morale of our troops fighting overseas, as does much of what crazy Cindy used to say. That needs to be slapped down, so the troops know we do care about them, and support their mission. Lamenting the failure of an assassination attempt of the Vice President is also noteworthy, in that it borders on the criminal. I would go astep further, and agree that everytime an elected official speaks like Moore, Maher, crazy Cindy, Rosie O. etc., etc. does, then all the outrage one can muster is fully justified.
Possibly dissing the gay community by equating it with Edwards at a Republican beauty pageant, a year and a half before the election?
I don’t see how it matters.
Comment by stoo @ 3/4/2007 - 12:22 pm
So we have to slap down something that could hurt the morale of the troops but not slap down something that could hurt not only members of the gay community who also happen to be Republicans but the party in general and continued attempts at striving for our opinions to be taken seriously? That makes no sense.
If I see something I feel is inappropriate, I make no apologies for condemning it whether it’s a liberal or conservative making the comment, no matter who it affects - whether it’s the troops, the gay community, or what have you. If we want to set high standards for civil discourse we have to be willing to abide by them, even when it means taking one of our own to task. If not, we risk looking like hypocrites and not just amongst each other.
I have defended conservatives like Bill Bennett for making remarks the ususal suspects found ‘hateful’ but in actuality were not (remember the abortion and black people comment he made a couple of years ago)? There was so much manufactured hype about those comments that even the administration came out and condemned them, which I thought was wrong. I’ve even defend Ann Coulter herself a couple of times on this blog. But I won’t defend her, nor any other conservative, who uses useless unhelpful rhetoric that I’d take a far lefty to task for. Uncalled for remarks are uncalled for, no matter who is saying them.
Comment by Sister Toldjah @ 3/4/2007 - 12:35 pm
Here, ST.
Jeff Goldstein says it much better than I have.
Comment by stoo @ 3/4/2007 - 12:36 pm
stoo, do you think conservatives en masse started condemning Ann just to please the left? I certainly didn’t. I respect Jeff’s opinion, but I do know that he wouldn’t hesitate to criticize someone from the left for saying something outrageous and has felt the need to criticize the right when the occassion called or it. Just because he doesn’t feel the need to do so on these particular marks doesn’t change the fact that he has and does condemned certain comments from the right in the past, and that goes for other bloggers who’ve taken a similar stance.
Jeff’s argument seems to be the ’she has a right to say it’ and ‘I should be under no obligation to condemn it.’ But this isn’t really an issue of whether or not someone has the right to say something but whether or not it’s right to say, and it’s also not an issue of the right feeling like they have to condemn something ‘before’ the left takes them to task, but instead being consistent in taking their own to task just like they would the far left.
Comment by Sister Toldjah @ 3/4/2007 - 12:41 pm
Sister,
This flap is because of Bill Maher’s remarks on wanting the suicide bomber to have killed Cheney in Afghanistan. They are just trying to cover for their wingnuts.
Comment by PCD @ 3/4/2007 - 4:30 pm
Sis,
Your Bill Bennet reference was a good choice in that it, too, was not a negative comment about a person or persons. Once again, referring to the clip everone is showing, she did NOT call Edwards a faggot. I can’t imagine her using the term for an actual homosexual, thus, I don’t believe she used the word to infer anything about Edwards. I reviewed the comments from your link regarding past posts about Coulter, and one of your visitors nailed it: Her humor is not for everyone. But the point is that she says these harsh things mostly in jest. Her real issue with her target is something else. But her schtick is much like Don Rickles. Rickles is far more direct and one wonders how his targets can ever really be laughing along. But we KNOW he’s kidding because he’s a comedian. At this point in her career, it should be obvious to everyone the style Coulter employs and lighten up. I think it would be quite obvious if she trashed someone for real. And then I WOULD object.
Just the same, it’s fun to watch the libs get the vapors. As if they really care about the feelings of Edwards or gays. It’s just a chance to slam a conservative.
Comment by Marshall Art @ 3/5/2007 - 12:58 am
A few thoughts on the Coulter kerfuffle:
1. I confess to liking Ann more than ST does. When she’s on her game, there’s no one better at giving the libs fits and getting under their skin. Quotes like this are absolute gold:
Or this:
You’ve got to admit she’s saying what we all know to be true - but with an edginess that cuts to the core of the issue. And with a good amount of ridicule. Ridicule, once established, is an effective political tool. Ask Dan Quayle.
2. That said, there are times when I want her to Just. Shut. Up. This was one of those times. When she stops talking about overtly political issues and crosses over into into social topics, she has a tendency to go off the deep end.
3. Thinking over similar incidents, the closest analogy is Al Gore’s “extra chromosome” comment. It was a direct assault on people afflicted with a serious disease and showed his lack of compassion and the depth of his bigotry. But here’s the key point: how did this hurt him? Answer: not at all. And we’re talking about their nominee for President, not a mere columnist. Face it - libs will continue to be more intemperate. Hate is their stock in trade (see Bill Maher as their most recent exhibit A). Michael Moore can say worse than Ann Coulter and get VIP seating at their convention.
4. So as much as this comment made me cringe, it’s a tempest in a teacup. A year from now, when the Guiliani, McCain, Romney and other forces are at full steam heading for battle in the Iowa fields and the White Mountains of New Hampshire, no one will care about it. Unless she gives a repeat performance.
Conclusion: we’d have been best served by not playing it up as much - but quietly telling her to cool it, and disinviting her from any role in any gatherings. CPAC 08, for example, should pull the welcome mat now. I’m not arguing that we should ignore, excuse, or, God forbid, encourage such comments. Just handle it behind the scenes and stop flagellating ourselves so much.
Here’s my real concern: as a fallout from dumb comments like this, we develop a fear of saying anything too strong. It’s an old adage that politics ain’t beanbag. If we observe the Marquis of Queensberry rules while the libs are kicking us below the belt, we’re going to lose. You can make a good case that this has already happened in some elections. Eventually, the meek will inherit the earth, but that time isn’t now. As Margaret Thatcher once said in another context, this is no time to go wobbly. I don’t want the reaction to Coulter’s ill-conceived remark to spill over to where we get nervous anytime the libs whine - VP Cheney’s recent comments on the Democrats’ Iraq strategy, for example.
Comment by Great White Rat @ 3/5/2007 - 1:25 am
Comment by tommy in nyc @ 3/5/2007 - 8:43 am
Some interesting reading this morning from Joe Carter at Evangelical Outpost put the Coulter mess better than I ever could:
You can read more here.
Comment by Justin Thibault @ 3/5/2007 - 10:57 am
Clearly still on the medication, tommy mumbles into the headphones:
ladies like this woman are the reason why the poltical party I vote for now control the House and Senate.
Uh, no, tommy. Wrong as usual. Check the returns. In every case where the Dems took a seat from the GOP, it was because the Democrats pretended to be center-right candidates. In other words, people like Heath Shuler and Patrick Murphy won because they took pains to sound more like Sister Toldjah than Nancy Pelosi. Problem with that is, you can’t pull off the same trick twice. Not once you have that Pelosi-like voting record haunting you two years later.
Also, notice tommy votes for the ‘party’, not the candidate. He’s admitting he has no thought process and just mindlessly pulls the Dem lever.
So, since you were out of action, tommy, let me bring you up to date on some of the news you might have missed in the past week:
- Hillary and Obama are having a major spitting match. Even a big time liberal donor like David Geffen now admits the Clintons were, and are, shameless liars.
- The global warming hysteria is in full retreat, Al-Gore has been exposed as an energy-wasting hypocrite, and the excuse of ‘carbon offsets’ couldn’t pass the laugh test has been reduced to a punch line.
- American troops involved in the ’surge’ in Iraq are having great success, to the dismay of islamofascists and their liberal allies everywhere.
- The Dems in control of Congress are (like Tommy) incapable of figuring out exactly what they want to do most to help AQ. However, they have agreed that allowing secret ballots in elections is a bad thing.
Every one of these will have much more impact that anything Coulter said last week, but don’t worry about that. Just keep on giggling into the bong.
Comment by Great White Rat @ 3/5/2007 - 3:08 pm
People are way too sensitive. This is where I part company with many conservatives here and elsewhere.
Comment by Ryan @ 3/5/2007 - 10:20 pm