Giuliani, Romney, McCain camps denounce Coulter’s attack on Edwards

Hotair ^ | 5:12 pm on March 3, 2007

[MovementConservative]

Conservative author Jennifer Rubin wondered this morning whether any Republican candidates would have the decency to do a little Sistah Souljah-ing here:

It is not “caving” into political correctness to distance and indeed condemn such remarks as unworthy of a political event like CPAC… Excommunication is not being suggested, just a public rebuke. By clearly stating her comments are beyond the bounds of civil discourse and her presence not a welcome addition to a mature political party, the Republicans could do themselves a world of good. How often does a party have the opportunity to display some measure of dignity, restraint and self-reflection.?
Actually, it sounds like she is suggesting excommunication. No presidental contender’s gone that far (yet), but if it’s condemnation she’s waiting for, the wait is over:

Of the major Republican candidates, only Mr. McCain did not attend [CPAC], but he denounced her remarks on Saturday morning. “The comments were wildly inappropriate,” said his spokesman, Brian Jones.
Mr. Giuliani said, “The comments were completely inappropriate and there should be no place for such name-calling in political debate.”
Kevin Madden, a spokesman for Mr. Romney, said: “It was an offensive remark. Governor Romney believes all people should be treated with dignity and respect.”

Coulter’s own reaction, per an e-mail to the Times: “C’mon, it was a joke. I would never insult gays by suggesting that they are like John Edwards. That would be mean.”

Do the denunciations mean Edwards’s site will quit referring to her as a “Republican mouthpiece” or his campaign manager, David Bonior, will stop sending out fundraising appeals like this?
John was singled out for a personal attack because the Republican establishment knows he poses the greatest threat to their power. Since they have nothing real to use against him, Coulter’s resorting to the classic right-wing strategy of riling up hate to smear a progressive champion. And the Republican attack dogs will keep playing this despicable trick as long as they think it works.

No, of course not. There is a potential silver lining here for gays, though. Says Robbie at the Malcontent: Romney has spent months wooing the Religious Right with culture warrior issues like gay rights and abortion. It certainly doesn’t take an oracle to know gay marriage will come in for yet another bit of rehashing during the 2008 campaign. Now, every single time Romney or any other Republican candidate decides to take gay issues for a good beating to curry favor with the base, at the back of the media’s and many voters’ minds will be Ann Coulter calling someone a faggot after Mitt Romney said nice things about her. Politicians like to euphemize their positions. The sanctity of marriage. Platitudes about disagreeing with gay rights but affording homosexuals in society dignity and respect. Coulter has now made those euphemizations just a little bit more untenable…
If those who support gay issues possess any political wisdom, Coulter’s message will be entwined with anti-gay political rhetoric from now until election day. “Sancitity of Marriage. Faggot. Applause.” All of a piece. Love the sin, hate the sinner? Applause for faggot. Coulter receiving choice interview spots on programming like Hannity and Colmes? Applause for faggot.

For what it’s worth, Romney did win the CPAC straw poll. Rudy came a strong second and, unlike Romney, with no big contingent of his own volunteers there cheering him on.

[Tribune7]

“C’mon, it was a joke. I would never insult gays by suggesting that they are like John Edwards. That would be mean.”

I love that girl!! LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

[ml/nj]

I'm curious.

What did she say that is not true or accurate? (Honest question, I wasn't paying attention I guess.)

ML/NJ

[farmer18th]

You're missing something about Reagan. He had an edge--something none of these "kinder, gentler" imitators have. When I was a graduate student and he used the term "evil empire," I can remember how horrified the left was, something like they are with Anne. People who tell the truth are always going to offend people who defend lies. The homosexual lobby is a cancer on our republic, a barren branch, an angry, deviant band of people who literally cover their genitals with dung every time they have intercourse. It's about time we thoroughly demonized them.

[OldFriend]

Every time Ann is on FNC representing the conservative point of view, she manages to drive people away from the right. We cannot afford any more of this meanspirited rhetoric. It serves no purpose.

[upsdriver]

"I denounce Giuliani, Romney, McCain."

Same here!! What a trio of spineless basturds!!

[Waryone]

"And blacks should be ok at being called the *N* word as well?"

The irony of this entire situation is that a black person had to go into rehab for calling someone a faggot. In my entire life, all the times I've been called an *N*, in all the times family and friends have been called the *N* word, absolutely none of those offenders have ever been forced into rehab.

Ann was pointing out that situation and some people here are up in arms. The Homonazi's really do have some (conservative?) people well conditioned.

[Clara Lou]

I have neither asked nor suggested on any thread that Ann Coulter apologize. You obviously have me confused with someone else. [I don't want her to apologize, even though I'd prefer that she hadn't said what she did say.]

[Oztrich Boy]

I'm outraged that conservatives have turned on Ann Coulter

It's as bad as the way gun-nuts attacked the respected hunter Jim Zumbo for his slip of the keyboard when he stated thar they were terrorists.

Does a position on a pedestal count for nothing?

[NorCalRepub]

....no, you said you didn't see what was wrong with Ann Coulters remarks.....OK, I understand, but alot of people here got crazy including me when the Dixie Chix said their crap....you mean it is ok for Ann to do it but wrong when liberals do it?....just asking for clarification

[Bigh4u2]

BTW!

President Bush wasn't running for office when they made their comment.

He was already the 'Leader of the Free World', so their comments weren't just inappropriate towards a 'candidate' but towards the U.S. and it's leader.

BIG difference.

[don-o]

Bad dog Bad dog

[teawithmisswilliams]

.....ok, I understand that....so did you say the same thing about the Dixie Chicks when they bashed Bush?...they were not running for office either.

And did the democrat candidates race to denounce the Dixie Chicks?

This "denouncing" garbage makes the repub. candidates look like peecee wimps--which is the last thing this country needs, and the last thing our enemies need to see.

[Rb ver. 2.0]

I have a friend who is a fag hag and the gay brigade shows up at her parties. They most certainly do call each other fag and queer, in the most affectionate way too.

[Judith Anne]

Okay, first of all this thread, which you started about Ann Coulter, you've made a number of negative comments about her.

And you made an anti-Ann comment on this thread:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1794687/posts

And you made an anti-Ann comment on this thread, a Bill Maher thread, your post #22

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1794568/posts

And you made an anti-Ann comment on this thread, about Howard Dean denouncing her (I guess you agree with him) your post #48

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1794414/posts

And on this thread, about the blogosphere criticizing Ann, a couple of anti-Ann comments:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1794267/posts

Interesting. You really hate her, it's clear. And I note that you call a couple of FReepers who disagree with you, "morons."

And this is the only thing you have in your profile:

"No more crooks, frauds, or 'moderates'. Movement conservatives are what's needed to advance an agenda that helps people reach their full potential."

Frankily, n00b, that could have been written by Edwards. Conservatives are not about an agenda that helps people "reach their full potential." They are about less government, even if people fail to reach their full potential. They are about government letting people alone, so they can decide if they want to reach their potential or not. They are about lower taxes, they are about protecting the borders, they are about freedom of speech, and they are about the Constitution.

Ann Coulter has more genuine conservative props than you will EVER have, has taken more guff, and has put herself on the line numerous times. It seems to bother you that she also is a commercial success. What's that about?

[zbigreddogz]

OK, so can I denounce Coulter by by calling her a 'Whore' and have it be no big deal then?

Apparently not. I posted a threat asking this question and it got pulled.

Which of course, makes sense. It's unacceptable, as it should be. But not paying the same credit to Edwards is blatantly hypocritical.

[Issaquahking]

Seen the

John Edwards Video yet?

[NorCalRepub]

...I'm sure Dick Cheney thinks just like you on the subject of homosexuality......disagree....work against it but demonize it.....I agree to demonize the concept, but never the people....

[youngjim]

“C’mon, it was a joke. I would never insult gays by suggesting that they are like John Edwards. That would be mean.”

These Coulter threads from the last few days remind me of the old line "I went to see a fight and a hockey game broke out."

[jetson]

just goes to show that these guys are wimps.

[NorCalRepub]

....I don't see a difference at all....I hate the liberals tactics of hate and invective.....I just think we should emulate a Reagan and disarm with charm and wit....and not slurs....that is all