Posted on 03/03/2007 8:01:55 PM PST by llevrok
Ann Coulter is not African-American, does not sing and never said “If black people kill black people every day, why not have a week and kill white people?” However, she is the closest the Republicans will get to Sister Souljah.
Coulter has made a career of interspersing insightful and cutting political criticism with outrageous and morally repugnant remarks. She attracted considerable attention with her crack about the group of 9/11 widows dubbed the “Jersey girls,” with a line in one of her books, “These broads are millionaires, lionized on TV and in articles about them, reveling in their status as celebrities and stalked by grief-arazzis. These self-obsessed women seemed genuinely unaware that 9/11 was an attack on our nation and acted as if the terrorist attacks happened only to them. ... I’ve never seen people enjoying their husbands' deaths so much.”
Then, there was her crack about Muslims at last year’s Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC): “I think our motto should be post-9-11, ‘rag head talks tough, rag head faces consequences.’” At CPAC on Thursday, in endorsing Republican presidential aspirant Mitt Romney, who needs more bad press like a hole in the head, she piped up with this one: “I was going to say something about John Edwards, but it turns out you have to go into rehab if you use the word ‘faggot.’”
It's about time for a presidential contender, perhaps all of them in the spirit of Newt Gingrich’s crusade for improving public discourse, to say “enough.” Coulter’s never-ending stream of venom is not amusing, unhelpful to Republicans, and not in keeping with the ideals of a party that fancies itself as the proponent of a colorblind society and heir to Lincoln.
It is not “caving” into political correctness to distance and indeed condemn such remarks as unworthy of a political event like CPAC. To the contrary, it is altogether fitting that a group that ostensibly searches for the best in conservative ideas, rewards political courage and encourages intellectual debate, should be able to differentiate the amusing from the offensive, and the clever from the vile.
Conservatives take great glee in condemning ideological opponents who share stages with Al Sharpton or give a convention seat to Michael Moore. It would certainly boost their credibility to toss their own baggage out.
Would it be a stunt to call out Coulter, who obviously revels in the attention of provocative pronouncements? No. 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.?
So who will play the role of Bill Clinton to Coulter’s Sister Souljah? It would be a sad commentary on the GOP if the answer is “no one.”
Jennifer Rubin is a writer who lives in Virginia. Her columns appear in the Weekly Standard, the American Spectator, Human Events, abc.com and National Review Online.
*sigh*.
One more time. About Ann Coulter:
She has not had a meltdown on TV like Susan Estrich or Lawrence O'Donnell, who shouted down John O'Neill prior to the '04 election.
She has not called the Bush administration a bunch of "liars" and "murderers" like Joy Behar did recently.
She has not foamed at the mouth and yelled that Bush "betrayed his country" like that buffoon Al Gore did at a MoveOn event.
She has not stated that Republicans like to "hide the salami" like Howard Dean did on Chrissy Matthews show.
She did not smear our volunteer Army with a sneer, declaring them to be too stupid not to end up in Iraq like Effin' did in October of last year.
She did not refer to the Alito nomination for SCOTUS as "sloppy seconds" as did a national television news reporter did.
She did not drive Alito's wife to tears unlike the 'Rats on the Senate Juidiciary Committee did.
Politics ain't beanbag. I agree with her Jersey Girls remark in "Godless" and don't think her remark about the Breck Girl deserves all this calumny. Sorry your panties appear to be in a bunch Jennifer. Perhaps we can find a fainting couch for you. 'Pod.
If the war of words consists of hinting that someone may be a faggot who is not a faggot, count me out.
There was no reason to say it. It might even have made sense if she had called Barney Frank a faggot.
But Edwards?
Of those things you mentioned that Ann did not do, did any of them seem fair and deserved?
Heck no. She is doing what the left does, she is turning into out Susan Estrich.
She is gonna have about as many converts to out side as Susan did to hers.
ZERO.
It is just a game they play. The time for playing is quickly coming to an end.
George Allen called a guy "Macaca." Nobody knew what it meant, so they searched for a way to turn it into a bigoted statement. There isn't a soul in this forum that doesn't understand what is implied by "faggot," and anyone who says they are confused is a maddogged liar.
By the way, saying "macaca" cost Allen what was never supposed to have been a very close election, NOT apologizing for saying it.
Most of the criticism of Ann seems to come from jealous women. I regret to see Michelle Malkin join that group.
You can argue about Ann's actions, but as far as Ms. Rubin, let us move on here.....
Yeah, I know what you mean. I mean, you know, like, who needs to spell correctly? Too much emphasis is put on "accuracy." Especially when it comes to newspapers and magazines -- they just have to spell all the words right. Would it kill them to, like, write "ax" instead of "ask" or "heighth" instead of "height" like some of us illiterates pronounce it? Why not throw in a couple of screw-ups to make the rest of us feel like we're just as smart?
In the spirit of fighting the "anal retentive spelling Nazis," I suggest that from this point forward, you spell it "Notzys," just like it's pronounced. </sarcazm>
Whatever, dude. You may be incoherent, but you certainly are consistent.
On the subject of pettiness: there are few acts more petty than calling someone a "faggot" -- jokingly or not -- because you disagree with them politically. It's not brave, it's not informative, it's not thoughtful. It's just mean. It's the equivalent of flipping the bird in traffic. Ann's smarter than that, but she doesn't seem to want to prove it.
Ann Coulter has become a caricature of herself, and she doesn't seem to be aware of it. She got to the cover of Time magazine by being nasty, and now she's got to keep topping herself at the price of her credibility and any semblance of respectability. It's a shame.
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.