Respectfully, please re-read the title of this thread. If as you state in your post this comment is indefensible "where was the outrage, when Coulter call Gore a "f.." on national TV--certainly a larger audience than CPAC. While its certainly acceptable to debate the vulgarity of the term, ceding the high ground to dishonest moralists who will allow calling for the murder of our President and VP, while displaying high moral dudgeon about what is simply a barnyard epithet (one that AC had used before) strikes me as intellectully dishonest.
This charge has already been made in this post: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/1795289/posts
Under a link to Hannity's home page: [quoting from the post]
"Sean Hannity announcement
Sean Hannity announcement at the end of Hanity's America: Coulter on Hannity & Colmes Monday night, March 5th.
If Ann makes any comment other than a sincere apology she will be making a fool of herself trying to defend the indefensible."
Hannity did not make this announcement. The poster here admits as much after several requests for a verifiable link of Hannity's statement in post 167.
This idea that AC's comments are 'indefensible' is irrational cant. And while I'm certainly an AC fan; this characterization of the poster's words as Hannity's show the level of mendacity the AC poster will stoop to make their "indefensible" point.
The poster I'm referring to in the above post is pinged here as a courtesy.
Actually, I thought my use of the word indefensible was original and exactly correct. If someone else used it, good on them!
If Coulter used the word 'faggot' in reference to an opponent before in one of her talks or interviews or essays, I hadn't known about it--but does prior use somehow make it right? Does she get a pass or credit for being a habitual ad hominem name-caller?
Saying, "they said something awful about our guy too" is like whining to your mother about "Johnny did it first." I don't pretend to defend Liberals' odious statements at all, and but you certainly can't justify any conservative crossing the line of ad hominem attacks with that kind of puerile defense. Getting down in the mud with your opponent only sullies your argument.
I guess I'm too conservative for some in my opinion about what's is right and wrong in political discourse.