Posted on 03/03/2007 2:29:00 PM PST by 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.
And the RINOS stampede to please the MSM.
Don't know don't care. Serious people don't use slurs. Conservatives have always been the business suit, law and order, God fearing, well behaved types. If the GOP wants to be associated with skunks like Coulter, then it's time for a new party that embraces civility, traditional values, sanctity of life, free markets, low tax, peace through strength party. Keep Ann Coulter and her uncivilized minions away from the adults.
A properly done denunciation would be rubbing it in still more, something along the lines: "although the former senator edwards looks like a homosexual, it may well be that he actually is not one, despite his uncanny resemblance to the homosexual type.... therefore any suggestion that he actually is a homosexual is to be withdrawn as unsubstantiated until such time when it is clearly proven that he is a homosexual..".
Do you mean like "Bush lied, people died, no WMD, yada, yada, Yada?"
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
No, I just only our side is not allowed to make offensive remarks, factual or otherwise.
As for Romney, isn't it interesting that gays are only 3% of the American population, approximately the same proportion as members of his religion. Yet it is perfectly okay to defame the later, but blasphemy to direct the most mild of criticisms at the former.
Yeah, I realize the lamestream media drives this agenda and swings perhaps 20% of the electorate with their propaganda disguised as news, but it would be nice to see one of the front-runners defending the media's favorite whipping boys with half the fervor with which they defend gays.
What word can we use, if we can't call them Democrats any more?
Spoken like a real snob. Actually, Ann's a constitutional lawyer, not a NASCAR driver, so you're the one who's trash.
I hope FoxNews cuts her loose too. No serious person should be associated with her. If you get close to a skunk, you're going to end up stinking eventually.
Ann displayed the kind of lack of character we are, unfortunately, seeing far too much of. People who sling personal insults, attacks and ridicule on a pretty much daily basis - cannot claim to be principled conservatives, imo.
Notwithstanding the political incorrectness of her remark, Ann's email answer to the Times was priceless!!
No argument there. Still have a chance Newt will run. If Romney and Giuliani are serious about all their judicial nominees being carbon copies of Roberts, Alito, Scalia, and Thomas, then I will have to take a leap of faith with one of the two.
And blacks should be ok at being called the *N* word as well?
Good post!
As for the 3 f them, I denounce their denouncment, since they took what she said, as did many other, completely out of context. Thus they lack the intellegence to call themselves Republican. She was making a statement with regard to people going to rehab to "correct a problem called homophobia" NOT calling anyone, anything.
Ann is replacing Pat Buchanan as the conservative journalist that we always have to apologize for.
(And btw, don't you know the Ann Coulter picture rule?)
Ann Coulter is a terrific writer and as sharp as a whip. Not only does she say exactly what she thinks, she puts it quite sharply. It's what makes her both entertaining and controversial.
The good part of Ann Coulter's acerbic style is that, right or wrong, she is unfailingly entertaining. The downside is that sometimes she goes too far. But her readers take the bad with the good, and not only are we entertained, we also appreciate her boldness and enjoy her insight.
Michelle Malkin denounced Coulter for this.
Maybe now she'll rethink her support for Romney.
Coulter is an embarrassment. I cannot fathom why CPAC would have invited her as a speaker. We don't need our own version of Michael Moore.
Big surprise. The Rino toadies jump on cue.
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.