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.

[Maeve]

Then maybe, dearie, this is a good time for you to stop using Janice Rogers Brown's name.

[Sir Francis Dashwood]

increased familiarity with someone who plagiarized someone else's name.

So, now you have issues with my screen name here... good...

It is in good company with Ben Franklin...

[GOPJ]

Ann's great - and you, MovementConservative need to lighten up ... it was a joke. And a funny one at that.

[UltraKonservativen]

Don't call John Edwards a FAGOT...but it's OK to call Ann Coulter a SKUNK...nice "even handed" comment...

[farmer18th]

Not at all. Rapists should be executed. But not because the Old Testament says it. They should be executed because it's a good idea to get rid of human vermin.

You don't know it, but your very ideas, your very assumptions, flow from Christian tradition. Before Christianity, our Druid ancestors were throwing human sacrifices into peat fires and wearing their enemys' heads as belt ornaments. Before Cortez, the Aztecs were cutting the beating hearts out of their victims, in ceremonies so baroque they had to design plumbing to accomodate blood. You have Christianity to thank for reforming the savage mind--and don't think reason alone can do it. Look at the French revolution. You might think the adultery laws of the OT are outdated. Fine. But you need to address the empirical reality that we have a massive welfare state and a legal system which simply cannot handle serial monogamy.

I would side with you on the Quaker controversy in Massachusetts, but you're arguing from the exception, and these states were not theocracies. The congregationalists pastors we separate from each town's rule-making selectmen. Contemporary critics of Christian tradition simply can't stand that some policy makers, including GWB, make their decision based on their own imperfect perceptions of God's will. However imperfect that is, I would rather have a Jew or a Christian trying to achieve justice on the basis of scripture than I would a Rosie O'Donnel trying to make policy on the basis of her common "sense."

[LtdGovt]

I'm not using her name and pretending to be her. I'm using her quote. Nice try, though.

[LtdGovt]

So, now you have issues with my screen name here... good...

With you using that particular name.

[Sir Francis Dashwood]

So, you don't like my name... I am happy...

Get a life...

[Maeve]

Neither are others who use screen names. So drop that bullying tactic in the future.

[farmer18th]

Heah, this guy LtdGovt is a newbie. We've been arguing with a guy who hasn't even been in the trenches.

[Sir Francis Dashwood]

Heah, this guy LtdGovt is a newbie.

I think he is a DNC troll...

[LtdGovt]

You don't know it, but your very ideas, your very assumptions, flow from Christian tradition. Before Christianity, our Druid ancestors were throwing human sacrifices into peat fires and wearing their enemys' heads as belt ornaments.

True, but our other intellectual predecessors, the Greeks and Romans, did not sacrifice humans, unless you want to count the Gladiators, or throwing Christians to the lions. I'm not saying that Christianity is bad. I'm saying that it has been a force for good. But if you impose its laws, especially Old Testament laws, then you're making a very big mistake.

You have Christianity to thank for reforming the savage mind--and don't think reason alone can do it. Look at the French revolution.

Some un-Christian people in history have been cruel, too. Think of the Inquisition. People were persecuted for having beliefs that were none of the Church's business. Respect for the private lives and consciences of people is very important.

You might think the adultery laws of the OT are outdated. Fine. But you need to address the empirical reality that we have a massive welfare state and a legal system which simply cannot handle serial monogamy.

I hate adultery. But it's a private matter, and families can handle the issue on their own. I don't see how the state getting involved has any added value. And I believe in a very limited role for government.

I would side with you on the Quaker controversy in Massachusetts, but you're arguing from the exception, and these states were not theocracies. The congregationalists pastors we separate from each town's rule-making selectmen.

We're talking about the situation before the Revolution, not? I think there were some theocracies out there. Massachusetts, Connecticut maybe.

Contemporary critics of Christian tradition simply can't stand that some policy makers, including GWB, make their decision based on their own imperfect perceptions of God's will. However imperfect that is, I would rather have a Jew or a Christian trying to achieve justice on the basis of scripture than I would a Rosie O'Donnel trying to make policy on the basis of her common "sense."

Well, you compare two extreme cases, George Bush and Rosie O'Donnel. But I'd rather have some gay person who is rational and wise, who bases his decisions on a combination of scripture, our intellectual tradition and common sense, than a 'Christian' who is so rigid and so desperate to find a splinter in another person's eye that he cannot see the log in his own.

[LtdGovt]

So, you don't like my name... I am happy...

I'm happy that you're happy, and I did not say that I don't like your name - just your use of it.

[NutCrackerBoy]

Sex is defined by nature.

What nature defines is overwhelmingly important. But at some level, sexual intercourse for procreation is a template. I would think it nuts to imply any and all variations are inherently disastrous.

What you like or do not like is of no consequence.

I agree consequences are beyond human control. I believe in morality, and morality would be a vacuous concept if it hinges on what I or any individual happens to think.

But since we individuals are not given to know everything, then the moral framework, even if it is believed to be the word of God, must be discussed and acted upon by mortals and sinners. What we think does matter -- our interactions greatly affect other people. That's how a culture works.

One can and should draw a line between what is natural and acceptable versus what is unnatural and unacceptable. But there is no crystal clear line.

[Sir Francis Dashwood]

I did not say that I don't like your name - just your use of it.

Should I care?

[LtdGovt]

Should I care?

Maybe. Maybe not.

[Sir Francis Dashwood]

...sexual intercourse for procreation is a template. I would think it nuts to imply any and all variations are inherently disastrous.

Nature is impersonal and does not care what you think and neither do I...

[farmer18th]

Greeks and Romans, did not sacrifice humans, unless you want to count the Gladiators, or throwing Christians to the lions.

That's a bit like saying, that mobster isn't a murderer when he's not murdering. Are you aware how ridiculous that statement sounds?

I hate adultery. But it's a private matter, and families can handle the issue on their own.

Really. It's a "private matter" when a woman who has been victimized by adultery appeals to the state for help raising her children? It's a "private" matter when it happens, but it's a "public" matter when we have to pay for it? You really need to start thinking through your assumptions.

I'd rather have some gay person who is rational and wise,

Is there anyting "wise" about covering your sexual organs with excrement?

[Sir Francis Dashwood]

Get a life...

[rollo tomasi]

But aren't we suppose to be "like Jesus"? Did not Jesus engaged in ridicule to provoke?

Another mushy moderate who has no idea what ""Behold, I send you our as sheep in the midst of wolves; so be wise as serpents and innocent as doves" means.

I have no intention of "having a form of Godliness but denying its power." but you seem to.