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.

[LtdGovt]

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?

It was not human sacrifice, it was entertainment. The distinction may sound technical to you, but it's real. As for Christianity's record on this, it isn't exactly squeaky clean. Think of the Inquisition (the Crusades were righteous so I will not mention them).

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 have a different solution. We shouldn't be paying for that. People should think before having children.

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

I don't get this at all, and it doesn't sound like something I like to talk about.

[LtdGovt]

You, too!

[LtdGovt]

But aren't we suppose to be "like Jesus"?

Are you like Jesus?

[dhs12345]

She'd do good in a formal debate. But then again, like you imply, I don't think she could keep quiet while the other side talks.

She has all of her facts and ideas straight. But she is a bit like a bull in a china closet. Advice: let the Dems talk so that you can point out where they are wrong. And happily pick apart what they say in front of the viewers.

[redgirlinabluestate]

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.

Yes, I wish some more of us would remember!

[F.J. Mitchell]

Ditto!

[farmer18th]

It was not human sacrifice, it was entertainment.

A comforting distinction. I think I've just about fathomed your depth. Thanks for the exchange.

[LtdGovt]

You were the one who talked about human sacrifice, instead of regular murder and disrespect for life. Human sacrifice is done to appease the gods, not to entertain some audience. There is a big difference.

[NutCrackerBoy]

Nature is impersonal...

Yeah, I don't see how that justifies or supports your verbal bile.

...and does not care what you think and neither do I...

Fine. Thanks for the discussion.

[Sir Francis Dashwood]

I don't see how that justifies or supports your verbal bile.

The truth offends you... to f***ing bad...

[Sir Francis Dashwood]

I don't see how that justifies or supports your verbal bile.

The truth offends you... too f***ing bad...

[LtdGovt]

Some people think that an assertion is evidence.

[rollo tomasi]

By denying myself, seeking forgiveness in Christ, rejecting sin, and putting my mind, Spirit, and heart towards Heaven I would say yes.

Apparently you would rather be a cheerleader for those who rule over us and slap God in the face.

By they way did not Jesus engage in ridicule to provoke? Are you saying Christians must be impotent? Apparently you think John the Baptist was a right wing fanatic who should have minded his own business.

[rollo tomasi]

Sorry "..and slap God in the face." Was not referring to you.

Should "...that slap God in the face."

"Mark them which cause divisions and offenses contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them." Romans 16:17

Politicians that are social liberal "Christians" are not Christians and deserved to be called on it. Only exception is if they are new to the Faith.

[PFC]

And do we really think that Ms. Coulter (born 1961) just hasn't found the right guy to settle down with yet?

[Judith Anne]

I think some of these newbies are DUers. It wouldn't be the first time.

[texson66]

You're full of shit!

[69ConvertibleFirebird]

Do Homo's call each other "fagots"?

That comment is so gay.

[Mark was here]

That comment is so gay.

Oh stop it! /lisp

[Mad_Tom_Rackham]

You consumed seven sentences to tell me that you don't like Ann Coulter. After that effort, I hate to tell you that I DON'T CARE.
And so, as Ann often does, I had employed an over-the-top allegory as a metaphor, and I was surprised that you answered with a literal interpretation. That's all.

I imagine you and I might have a lot in common, as to politics. Fare well, and see you around the forum.