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.

[Little Ray]

'Cause she still has a spine, and more balls than most 'Pubbie candidates and elected officials?

[kabar]

I also recall that there was no great rush by the MSM, civil rights groups and Reps to call for the Dem political ledership to "denounce" the remarks of Kanye West that "Bush hates black people."

[LtdGovt]

So that they will see and not understand. You claimed that Jesus never hated, but an understanding of Jesus requiring the Lord of the universe to love good, bad, pointless, boring, gentle and evil at the same time seems a tad shallow, don't you think.

Not at all, Jesus didn't hate anything, but that doesn't mean that we can't hate anything. Only that we are not supposed to hate any person.

If someone called you a snake, you might reasonably think you were being hated, don't you think?

Perhaps, but that could be wrong - and it often is.

Do you include yourself in this warning? Jesus said "you will be hated" for his namesake. Do you think gentle bi-partisan pronouncements earn the hatred of your enemies, or do you think preaching "repentence" (the great commission) does that?

You're suggesting that Christians act in a way so that people start to hate them? Well, in that case, I suggest blowing up buildings. That will no doubt result in hatred by many people.

It's interesting that you see everything as partisan. Religion isn't all that partisan.

[LtdGovt]

Jesus fulfilled the law; He didn't abolish it.

In effect, he did abolish the law. The law doesn't apply to Christians in the 21st Century. Do you obey the law of the Old Testament?

[LtdGovt]

Well, civil rights groups are 100% on the Democrats' side, they will not even attack Democrats for being racist. But the Republicans should have asked the Democrats to condemn those remarks - which they wouldn't have done, of course, arguing that Kayne West has nothing to do with the Democratic Party. It would be more fruitful to ask such a thing when there is a way to tie the Democrats to such remarks - when they're at a conference or convention, for example.

[KC_Conspirator]

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.”

These statements are a far cry from "denouncing". From the headline you would have thought they each tripped over one another on the rush to the podium to verbally assualt Coulter.

[lentulusgracchus]

Check this out...

http://tinyurl.com/2at9ac

Thanx for the link, they go on about how Sister Lydia is soooo Christian and all, and then one of 'em posts this one:

Comment from: Jesse Hemingway [Member]
I would let flat daddy (ann colter) know that if he/she is going to go into rehab it is 50% successful look at mark foley and ted haggard. If you smoke the pole ted haggard you will always be a pole smoker. Can I get an amen
03/03/07 @ 20:06

Oh, well, hey, whatever......

Coulter wasn't exactly at her direct best, and I'm not sure from the quote whether she meant to say that, as Newsweek once said about a plutocratic German sissy, the late Baron von Thurn und Taxis, he "prefers manly company" (hey, she could have said that! -- a Kitty Graham-approved classic!). If that's what she meant, that's what she should have said. And if she meant to say instead that he is elaborately metrosexual and tends to set gaydar alarm bells ringing in the editorial offices of GQ, then she should have said that!

Sometimes her blunt approach works; this time she tried to fade the jab and make a reference to phony PC moralism at the same time, but her wordy attempt at Sallustian compression fell on its ass. One jab at a time, Ann.

[lentulusgracchus]

That's a classic Clinton photo, I saved it to hard drive a year or two ago. Real Clintonian essence caught in a candid moment. God, what a schlump......

Tks for posting, and reminding us what we are up against.

[farmer18th]

Jesus didn't hate anything

Romans 9:13 As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated
Proverbs 13:5 A righteous man hateth lying: but a wicked man is loathsome, and cometh to shame
Proverbs 15:27 He that is greedy of gain troubleth his own house; but he that hateth gifts shall live.
John 12:25 He that loveth his life shall lose it; and he that hateth his life in this world shall keep it unto life eternal.

Jesus hates lots of things and he tells us to hate our own lives, to hate bribery, to hate lying, and, speaking as God the father, He says He hated Esau.

Making Jesus over into some sort of Mr. Rogers in a cardigan sweater is just not telling the truth about His ministry. He is also, as scripture tells us, love. Our finite minds need to find a way of wrapping our understanding around what seem to be contradicting realities.

When Anne Coulter lends a voice of condemnation to what God calls "an abomination," I don't think we should be whipping out the Hallmark scented-card Jesus and puttin up our tisk-tisk fingers. It just doesn't represent the historic or the scriptural position.

[kabar]

But the Republicans should have asked the Democrats to condemn those remarks - which they wouldn't have done, of course, arguing that Kayne West has nothing to do with the Democratic Party.

Ann Coulter has nothing to do with the Rep party. She is not the official spokesman for the RNC. She is not out campaigning for a specific candidate.

It would be more fruitful to ask such a thing when there is a way to tie the Democrats to such remarks - when they're at a conference or convention, for example.

Pure rationalization. The Dems have set up a vast network of groups ranging from the evironment to civil rights to political action, etc. and they coordinate their attacks against the opposition. It is the reason why Tom Delay is setting up the Coalition for a Conservative Majority. The response to Coutler's remarks are way out of proportion. Why?

[farmer18th]

He fulfilled the ceremonial law. No more blood sacrifice is necessary. The moral law, however, has been the bullwark of our judicial system for 2000 years. You believe you can murder with impunity?

[lentulusgracchus]

Always remember that Hitler's brownshirts... were led by a gay man.

The entire command staff of the SA were a gang of homosexuals and bisexuals. They used the Hitler Youth as their seraglio. It was so bad, that the Army generals whose support Hitler was trying to get, gagged on the SA's sexual perversion and flagrancy. At the same time, SA leader Ernst Roehm was demanding that the SA be given control of the Army, and that just wasn't going to happen. The Army had the hard-rock ability to defend itself against Hitler and the SA, and they hadn't yet sworn allegiance to Hitler and his cause, and they could still take him out.

Hitler ordered the "night of the long knives" for Roehm and the SA leaders to remove an obstacle to power.

[LtdGovt]

Romans 9:13 As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated Proverbs 13:5 A righteous man hateth lying: but a wicked man is loathsome, and cometh to shame Proverbs 15:27 He that is greedy of gain troubleth his own house; but he that hateth gifts shall live. John 12:25 He that loveth his life shall lose it; and he that hateth his life in this world shall keep it unto life eternal.

1 to 3 is not anything what Jesus has ever said, in fact, 2 and 3 are from the Old Testament. As for point 4, you have to be kidding me if you think that this is proof for your assertion that Jesus does hate. What he was trying to confer, was that people who 'hate this life' (are willing to give up what they have) will be rewarded in the next. That's not your kind of hate, sorry.

Jesus hates lots of things and he tells us to hate our own lives, to hate bribery, to hate lying, and, speaking as God the father, He says He hated Esau.

Says Paul. I don't know about you, but for me, when it comes to interpretation, Jesus' words take precedence over Paul's. You also shouldn't forget that Paul liked the Old Testament laws.

Making Jesus over into some sort of Mr. Rogers in a cardigan sweater is just not telling the truth about His ministry. He is also, as scripture tells us, love. Our finite minds need to find a way of wrapping our understanding around what seem to be contradicting realities.

And an armchair theologian like yourself sets out to remedy that?

When Anne Coulter lends a voice of condemnation to what God calls "an abomination,"

Oh please... she was using a slur against a political opponent, not condemning anything. And in any case, you seem to think that you are God. If you are, then strike them down. If you aren't, then you ought to have the patience to see what happens to these people after they die. If there is a God, I think they will be judged more favorably than you will be. For you behave in a manner that was directly condemned by Jesus, namely the way of the Pharisees.

[LtdGovt]

He fulfilled the ceremonial law. No more blood sacrifice is necessary. The moral law, however, has been the bullwark of our judicial system for 2000 years. You believe you can murder with impunity?

Your inability to see why we outlaw murder, is stunning. We don't outlaw it because the OT says so, but because murder is the violation of other people's rights.

As for Old Testament laws, do you keep the following laws?

KJV-Exodus [21:7]And if a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant, she shall not go out as the menservants do. [8] If she please not her master, who hath betrothed her to himself, then shall he let her be redeemed: to sell her unto a strange nation he shall have no power, seeing he hath dealt deceitfully with her.

KJV-Leviticus [20:9] For every one that curseth his father or his mother shall be surely put to death: he hath cursed his father or his mother; his blood shall be upon him.

Remember that "with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again" (KJV-Matthew 7:2). If you hold other people to Old Testament law, you yourself will be held to Old Testamend law.

[farmer18th]

And in any case, you seem to think that you are God.

For a while there, you seemed a worthy opponent, but I sense you are out of your depth when it comes to the way Christian tradition has informed our history. If speaking the truth as I see it, earns me divine pretender status, than you share that as well. You don't seem to brook any opposition to the seeker-friendly game plan.

Anne will hold more social conservatives in a Republican election than anything that may proceed from the beak of a RINO, and you should be grateful for that.

[Sir Francis Dashwood]

Ann is the Shield Maiden of the GOP...

TO HELL WITH THE PERVERTS...

[rollo tomasi]

So instead of referring to "girlie men" and denouncing Cultural Marxist reeducation camps by ushering the word faggot Coulter should follow Jesus and just call hypocritical politicians "Satan sons".

After all if it was Ok for Jesus to slam politicians who belong to a religion by using truthful ridicule such as "working for their father, satan" it should be Ok for anyone using the same ridicule reserved for politicians who are (And excuse) pro-abortion, pro-homosexuality and any social libertarian behavior condemned by God etc..

[farmer18th]

Anne has more mental upper body strength than McCain, Romney and Giuliani put together.

[LtdGovt]

Of course. But if we want to understand how to change the situation, we first have to understand how wo got here, and the Democrats pull it off. You're correct about the civil rights and political groups. And it is so that all these groups band together once the Democrats have decided that something is not to their liking. For example, Bush judicial nominee Charles Pickering, who had fought for black people's rights in Mississippi, was accused of racism by the NAACP, because the Democrats thought that he was too conservative.

[LtdGovt]

For a while there, you seemed a worthy opponent, but I sense you are out of your depth when it comes to the way Christian tradition has informed our history. If speaking the truth as I see it, earns me divine pretender status, than you share that as well. You don't seem to brook any opposition to the seeker-friendly game plan.

The issue is not speaking the truth as you see it, the issue is condemning people when that is clearly out of bounds for you. In any interpretation, condemnation is what God does, not dsome divine pretender.

Anne will hold more social conservatives in a Republican election than anything that may proceed from the beak of a RINO, and you should be grateful for that.

On the contrary, she has said that under no circumstances shall she vote for someone who is pro-choice, like Rudy Giuliani. She is a handicap to the GOP.