Posted on 03/03/2007 5:39:01 AM PST by mcg2000
Howard Dean Demands GOP Candidates Denounce Ann Coulter for Referring to John Edwards as a 'Faggot'
Please read some of the reply posts contained within the above link.
We all hear the complaints of how Libs stereotype and exaggerate the belief models of the GOP. Each of the complaints are justified due to the self-serving nature in which they're presented by different individuals imop (i.e. Sharpton, Jackson, Gore, Clintons, Dean etc).
Understanding the attention this forum carries and willingness of the MSM to stereotype, it really makes a person wonder "why these posts"?
It's well known Coulter is a loose-cannon who's not the most likeable person on the street. Sure, from time to time she may say things that we all wish we could say about a topic. Too many of those times they're comments that are intended to cut deep, undercut pride or reduce a person's dignity. In hindsight, we realize that by holding our tongue a mistake wasn't made with those comments. Disagreements are made through detail and facts, not over-the-top personal attacks.
We also hear/understand the remarks about Libs dividing the country, but no one works harder at it than Coulter.
Give a moment of reflection during the Hillary Clinton 2008 Acceptance Speech ... and think about the persons' who will reap the financial and media exposure benefits the most from her victory.
Same shoe, different foot.
I'm no moderate. Let's be clear about that.
I have defended Coulter in the past when she's come under fire. I generally enjoy watching her appearances on the political shows and her C-SPAN segments.
When she's the sole attraction, I really don't care what she says. My problem with this incident was that it took place at CPAC, where she was just one of many speakers, because it will likely overshadow everyone else.
I'm all for Coulter being 'controversial' when facing off against liberals on the Today show, or at some book signing or college appearnce, but at CPAC I think she should tone it down a bit because its not about her.
You question someone's conservative beliefs because they don't think it's appropriate to call a candidate a "faggot" in a highly profile public forum??Ummm, Coulter didn't call anyone a faggot. At least not in the speech she is being criticized for.
It's not about her, but you need to examine what CPAC has become.
I used to attend these, but they have become PC, wussified, RINOfests.
Last one I attended, Grover Norquist teared up on stage about illegal aliens. So did John Fund.
The ACLU has a booth there FGS, as well as the Log Cabin Republicans.
What's conservative about it anymore?
I remember you have called out Skeletor a long time ago. I was never a fan either--she doesn't seem like she really believes what she says anyway. She is a terrible ambassador for the party, and is a microcosm of the conservative movement. Maybe now people will learn that she is a dangerous, volatile ally and should be cut loose.
Wasn't it Howard Dean that screamed he HATED Republicans?
God Bless Ann Coulter. She is taking the war of words to the clown lunatic left.
Sorry ... I wasn't aware of the cowardly act of hiding behind an inference was being taken.
I remember that incident you speak of with Grover Norquist. It was at least a few years ago, right? I didn't remember that it was CPAC, though, as it was one of many things I've seen on C-Span over the years.
I've almost despised the man ever since I saw that truly despicable, nauseating performance. That a so-called conservative would stoop to such cheap, emotional, manipulative tactics was a disgrace. I kept hoping that the conservative-on-immigration member of the panel would pounce and point out to the audience that such behavior is typical of how leftists want to frame the immigration debate; as a series of heart-wrench immigrant success/sob stories. But he didn't.
But now anytime I see Norquist, or read his name, I can't help but think of that shameful episode.
What is the deal with the ACLU having a booth? I mean, does CPAC actually invite them? I know that the ACLU will take on a conservative client every once in a while in an effort to establish some non-partisan credentials, but I can't for the life of me understand how any conservative could support that leftwing organizations' insane view of the Constitution and the role of judges.
Ann has a right to her own style, but her style is simply not one reasonable people ought to condone for civil discourse. One wouldn't proscribe Ann's style as an ideal to strive for. It may be effective, entertaining, and strike chords of truth (much like comedy), but it's just not civil discourse.
When people say 'I'll castigate Ann when Murtha, Durbin, Gore, apologize' they've actually admitted that she's of the same low class as them.
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.