Ann Coulter calls John Edwards a "faggot." Coulter's schtick is well past tired, and she is forced to amp up the outrageousness to get attention. But how long can she play this game without the sliming the folks who applaud her? A lot of conservative bloggers are not happy:

Captain Ed: "Yeah, that's just what CPAC needs -- an association with homophobia.  Nice work, Ann." Linked at Instapundit.

Michelle Malkin was unamused, but understates the positive response to Coulter's remark, at least according to the audio clip.

RedState: "Ann Coulter's got to go. I hope every single one of the Republican presidential candidates disown her, I hope Vice President Cheney disowns her, I hope President Bush disowns her, I hope CPAC disowns her, and I hope every single conservative in America disowns her. The conservative movement will only be the better for it."

Comments

[Kirk D.]

And yet she will continue to get invited onto forums like the 1/2 Hour Comedy Hour, CNN, Fox and the rest. All despite the fact that if there ever was a person in modern times spewing nothing but hate, it is Ann Coulter. She makes having resonable debate impossible and she provides a forum and a voice for those with similar radical views like herself. Granted she has the right to say whatever she wants, but I don't agree that the media should encourage her. She does indeed need to go away.

[Jeffrey Sykes]

I've never enjoyed listening to that woman or, for that matter, wasted much time listening to her. She doesn't speak for me.

More important, though, I don't understand what she hoped to accomplish by calling Edwards that name. It's obviously a slur (thus inappropriate to begin with), and it obviously is not fitting in any social or political context in describing former Sen. John Edwards.

[brad krantz]

Most interesting to hear such a public, pathetic (and in the case of John Edwards, obviously wrong) gay slur from a woman who, at least to my knowledge, has never been romantically linked to any man. Could this be yet another rightwing whacko holier-than-though gay basher who is simply hiding her own homosexuality by striking out at others? Or is it a secret, reflexive, hard-right conservative notion to connect John Edward's compassion for the poor as weak, and therefore "gay?" Unless it is spouted by a truly macho guy in a cowboy hat from Texas under the guise of "compassionate conservatism."

I last spoke to Ann Coulter on the radio in Sept. '03, at which time she called me a "moron" because I pounded her for inexcusably combining two quotes in one of her "books" that made it appear that the dreaded NY Times had called Clarence Thomas a "colored lawn jockey for conservative white interests.... a chicken-and-biscuit eating Uncle Tom." The Times had not, nor do I believe they would ever use that kind of invective against anyone in an editorial. Coulter snapped.

That she will often be brought on the Yak shows on cable as an authority on ANYTHING is so beyond pathetic as to not be fathomable.

[Jay Ovittore]

The only logical move for Coulter being that she is filled with hate, lies incessantly, and spouts out the wrong thing like she has Turret's syndrome, is... A job with the Bush Administration. Makes complete sense, maybe some sort of Ambassador to the United States of Iraq or if the Administration doesn't work- a job with Ted Haggard's camp would seem to fit.

We should teach our children tolerance in our schools and Ann Coulter's of the future may be able to be averted.

If she's not hiding the fact that she herself is a homosexual by gay bashing, maybe a good life partner for her would be Mel Gibson. They seem to cut from the same mold.

[Ed Cone]

Coulter herself seems pretty much irrelevant at this point -- she's a shock-jock who makes money by saying outlandish things.

The real question is, who will continue to give her a platform? Fox News, CPAC...Mitt Romney seems to think she's a hoot. Is there any accountability for these relationships?

[DrFrankLives]

Mitt Romney accepted the Coulter creature's endorsement last night rather gleefully. Has anyone heard whether he has repudiated her remarks?

[The CA]

Coulter is s spoiled, sheltered Connecticut snob, which should make her have more in common with most of the liberal elites she regularly attacks. I don't get the point of the Edwards bit. It wasn't even funny, but you have to keep in mind that she also once called the writers at National Review "girly men". Wacky, indeed.

Still, I wonder what would have happened if she called Edwards "articulate and clean" or referred to American soldiers as mercenaries, or went off on some Anti-Catholic rant.

There are idiots on all sides of the spectrum. There is nothing remarkable about what Coulter said. I'm sure there is a lot more to come from idiots on the left and the right. My only hope is that we treat them equally.

[Roch101]

"Still, I wonder what would have happened if she called Edwards "articulate and clean" or referred to American soldiers as mercenaries, or went off on some Anti-Catholic rant." -- CA

Good question Sam, what did you do in response to the the above, dismiss the speakers as "Wacky?"

[David Wharton]

Here ya go, Dr. Frank.

[DrFrankLives]

Not good enough. A spokesman with a mealy-mouthed "it was inappropriate."

[The CA]

Well, I don't think Biden is wacky. The other two are wacky, especially Marcotte who is not only wacky, but deranged. I think what I did point out was how differently they were covered by bloggers as opposed to when someone like Coulter says something wacky. This difference in coverage being a fact that is on display right now.

[Roch101]

"This difference in coverage being a fact that is on display right now." -- CA

Too true. Too true.

[The CA]

Roch, do a google search of "Ann Coulter" and "spagnola". I think you will see that I have criticized her several times on this blog in the past for running her mouth. I have called her spoiled, a hypocrite, etc.

[billg]

For "Captain Ed":

It's too late. Professional bigots like Coulter exist because the GOP has deliberately leveraged bigotry and racism for the last 4 decades. That party legitimizes the use of hate and bias as tools of political leverage. It provides cover for smear artists.

The road from Nixon's Southern Strategy to Ann Coulter is a straight line, Coulter is a Repubican because the Republicans opened the doors very wide.

[The CA]

Liberal Bill Maher just said on Friday that we would be better off if Cheney was dead. Similar outrage and disowning mandates to come on this blog, or will the double standard prevail? One called someone a name, the other essentially said it would be a good thing if someone died. Which is worse?

Hypo time: If Ann Coulter said we would be better of if Al Gore died, would we hear cries of anti-patriotism and hatefulness?

I don't expect a new thread on this because...well, because...

Ball is in your court.

[billg]

No double standard. Maher is as much a parasite as Coulter.

The differerence is that Coulter was invited to participate in a legitimate and important conservative movement event. She shared the same stage with "mainstream" GOP candidates. That tells me the Coulter and her rhetoric are not only accepted by conservatives, they are welcomed.

Dissassociating yourself from her remarks is lame and unconvincing. It's not like anyone should be surprised by her rhetoric.

The same would apply to Maher if he pulled a similar stunt. Dems should not not invite Maher, and others like him, to their events. They shouldn't appear on his shows. Both parties should ostracize these folks.

[Kirk D.]

Sam,

I watched that episode of Real Time and Bill Maher said no such thing. He asked the panel why it was wrong that people's posts on certain blogs (Huffington Post) were being deleted for advocating the death of Cheney. He did not say we would be better off if he was dead, he was asking a rhetorical question of do we have freedom of speech or not? As I recall Coulter has called for the death of many people including Supreme Court Justices, Senators and others and yet SHE still gets invited to conservative functions, TV appearances and more. Why is that anyway?

[billg]

...but the important point is that since the 1960's the GOP has deliberately taken on the mantle of the old Dixiecrats to exploit the frustation of those who didn't like what they saw happening in the Sixties and don't like much of what they've seen since.

I see the Sixties as a time when America extended its promise of democracy to millions who had been oppressed, and see the politics of the ensuing decades as a continuation of that effort. I see those who oppose or are uncomfortable with all that as perceiving America not as a nation of anyone who agrees to uphold the Consititution, but as a nation comprised of people of specific color, language, religion, and culture.

[Kirk D.]

And before you come back with a "Yes, he did say that!" retort, I suggest you and everyone else go watch the relevant clip of this segment. He did not say we would be better off with Cheney blown up. You might think it might be parsing words, but words are what we are talking about here and their exact nature matters.

[The CA]

Kirk, this is what Maher said:

"I’m just saying if he (Cheney) did die, other people, more people would live." This was in the middle of the discussion about the bomb blast at the military base in Iraq where Cheney was claimed to be the target.

Billg, how you link Coulter's comments to the 1960's is baffling.

Name calling- hate speech from right wing nuts and bigots. Suggesting the world would be better off if our Vice-President was assassinated- just a nice little intellectual discussion. Again, what if Coulter had said that about Gore when Clinton was in office?

Hate speech, political correctness, name calling, etc., are the main areas where liberal double standards shine, which only goes to show again that their outrage about such things is phony. It's all about politics. It would be nice if they would admit it.

[billg]

I link Coulter with the 1060's because the advances of the 1960's prompted the GOP to deliberately exploit the racism and bigotry of those who opposed those advances. Coulter's acceptance by the GOP is just the latest example of their its enthusiasm for that approach. She wouldn't have been at that conservative bash if the GOP hadn't been culturing and welcoming people like her for the last 40 years.

I've already said Maher is cut from the same cloth as Coulter, and that both parties should ostracize them.

I don't pretend to speak for "liberals", and don't even consider myself one. Just because I find the GOP essentially loathsome doesn't mean I'm automatically a "liberal", or anything else. If you want a foil to bash on about the shortcomings you see in liberals, find someone else.

[The CA]

All this while you lump conservatives into a group of "bigots" and "racists"...Maybe if you want a foil to bash on about the shortcomings you see in conservatives, find someone else. I wonder if you had any comments for Joe Biden about his Obama remarks. The broken records that Republican's are racists and bigots are tired and have no credibility. If it were so, then most of America would have to be considered bigots and racists considering our governance for over a decade until last year. That would also mean we suddenly switched into being not racists and bigots in November. If the GOP wins in 2008, I suppose we'll switch back.

What do you consider yourself, a moderate? Does that make you "moderately" racist and bigoted, since a moderate usually takes something from both parties and ideologies?

[Cara Michele]

The Homeless Guy links to Ann Coulter's chat rules, which includes the following:

"-Ann Coulter is our hostess. You may agree or disagree with her positions, but any disrespect towards Ann will be grounds for immediate removal.

-All debate must be honest and fair.

-Obscene, profane, vulgar, or threatening posts will not be tolerated."

Very interesting. Very hypocritical.

[billg]

>>"...you lump conservatives into a group of "bigots" and "racists"

Not exactly, I said conservatives anf the GOP (since they are equivalent these days) exploit racsim and bigotry. Was Nixon personally racist? I don't know? Was his Southern strategy an attempt to exploit racism and bigotry and the fears associated with them? Absolutely. Conservatives grabbed that tool and have run with it to this day.

If racism wasn't an still issue, if bigotry about gender and sexual preferences weren't issues, I don't think we would have seen the growth of this modern-day anti-democratic perversion, or the growth of religious fundamentalism that has always paralleled it. Both movements have roots in the same fear of the changes in American during the last 40 years or so. I see it as a positive expansion of democracy. They, apparently, see it as licensing wickedness.

I don't know how many Americans are racists and bigots. I know enough are to give conservatives a strong solid political base.

I'd suppose you might call me a "dissapointed liberal". "Dissappointed" because I'm tired of the snarkiness and cultural snobbery evident in folks like Maher, and I'm tired of the ineffectual slant of much doctrinaire liberal foreign and defense policy. I'm really fed up with people of any political leaning who are confirmed ideologues.

[The CA]

We may disagree on some major points, but your last paragraph shows that at least you are honest in your beliefs and have independent thought and I respect that.

Cara, I agree that makes Coulter quite the hypocrite, but then again I have labeled her a hypocrite on more than one occasion on this blog in the past.

Interestingly enough, she once dated Bill Maher. Maybe that tells us everything we need to know about both of them.

[Kirk D.]

When was the last time Bill Maher was on the cover of Time magazine? Oh yeah, right. Never.

Maher is a comedian who fancies himself a politcal commentator. He gets away with his cheap shots at the Bush administration because he couches them in monologues and stand-up routines on Broadway and in his HBO series.

Last time I checked, Ann Coulter wasn't trying to be anything but deadly serious. Except of course when she says she's "making a joke" about Edwards. Interesting how her jokes are filled with venom, hate and bigotry and Maher's are more often than not, actually funny.

[The CA]

Coulter being straightforward serious? Maybe in her days at the Institute for Justice, but not as a pundit. Maher is a pundit, too and his venom, hate and bigotry is usually reserved for religion. He's not really funny, either. He's like the snarky John Stewart/Colbert/liberal blogger type that Billg was referring to. Substituting applause lines for substance. Maher and Coulter are no different.

[billg]

Well... I didn't say anything about Stewart and Colbert ( I don't watch Stewart, but then I don't watch much of anything), and explicitly didn't say snarkiness was a characteristic of liberal bloggers or something uniquely liberal.

The essential points that this thread seems to be ignoring are:

1. Coulter was invited to speak to CPAC. She didn't toss off that remark at a book-hawking news conference on the sidelines of the conference. The attempt to equate Maher's comments with her's would be considerably more valid if Maher had been invited to address, say, a DNC bash and declared that he'd welcome Cheney's demise. Besides, Coulter is better copy than Maher. She's better at dropping a sound bite. She's taller, blonder, and wears shorter skirts. She's got better name recogntion. She gets coverage for the same reasons a dead Anna Nicole Smith got coverage.

2. Coulter was engaging in hate speech. Discussion of alleged media bias is a sideshow. Her use of the F-word in front of an important political gathering should be condemned with the same vigor and sense of outrage that would greet her use of the N-word.That her remarks were, instead, greeted by cheers and laughter tells us a lot about the people in that room. Moral conscience should have required them to be repulsed by Coulter. Instead, they embraced her. Maybe next year CPAC will stage a minstrel show.

[The CA]

So is it the remark itself, or where she said it that is important? I find important to note that Coulter's remark was a joke, whereas Maher's was serious. Knowing that, which is more dangerous and hateful? Calling someone a name as part of a joke, or seriously saying we'd be better off if a certain person was killed?

[billg]

Your insistence on pointing to repulsive behavior by liberal groupies to deflect criticism of repulsive behavior by conservative groupies doesn't wash. Maher's inexcusable behavior doesn't excuse Coutler's. Or vice versa.

The difference between the two incidents is that Coulter, to repeat, spoke to, and at the behest, of one of the most important conservative organizations in the country. (And that's a legitimate reason to give the story more play than Maher.) Coulter is a known quantity. CPAC invited her -- tantamount to an endorsement -- and a car-load of GOP candidates agreed to share the stage with her. It's logical to conclude that they all support her hate-mongering. Or, can't recognize it when they see it.

I didn't take her remark as a joke. But, intended joke or not, it was unacceptable. The proper response was not laughter, but walking out. You don't excuse hate-speech just because the hater grinned and chuckled.

[Bubba]

Then let's not talk about Maher, or Coulter, for that matter.

Let's talk about true hate speech and the prominent leftists who have said things more far more offensive than what Coulter said.

And let's expose (again!) the Sock Puppet Greenwald while we're at it.

Notable excerpt from Patterico:

"If leftists defend any of the above quotes on the grounds that they’re "jokes," they cannot consistently criticize the likes of Ann Coulter for making the same kinds of "jokes." But they’ll try. Just watch."

[billg]

Give it up, Bubba. No one's keeping score, especially for someone willing to call political non-entities like Spike Lee and Alec Baldwin "prominent leftists."

Why not try to defend Coulter on the merits, rather than ignoring what she said and the people who cheered and who paid, and pointing fingers at the other side? How does anything anyone else has ever said justify Coulter's remarks? If she'd use the N-word, would you and your ilk be making lists of other people who used the word, too?

Coulter's appearance at CPAC is just one more piece of evidence that conservatives are about the business of fomenting and exploiting racism and bigotry for poltical advantage. If they had any sense of morallty left, they'd be apologizing, rather than looking for excuses and trumpeting their own sociopathy.