Sure, that's what he wants you to think now, but back in the day ...
Posted on 03/10/2007 10:55:14 AM PST by joesbucks
I have long thought that Ann Coulter has done more harm than good with certain of her writings and comments. Notice I've written certain, but you must take from those words the inference not all. Yes, certainly some of it has been very funny. Often there's a deep dish of irony served. Other times it takes someone like her cut through the chatter and name names and characterize situations.
The comment made at CPAC recently was one of those times where she stepped over the line when lampooning either someone or a situation or political correctness or whatever rationalization her supporters have put forward. But the fact remains, why didn't she insert the names of some famous conservatives if she was trying to make a point?
There has been no firm evidence or rumor that John Edwards is nothing more than heterosexual. The comment was based in those inopportune and awkward photos that were taken in the last election. One featured Edwards primping for an event. The others were during the 2004 campaign certain photos showed Edwards and running mate John Kerry looking or physically touching in photos that if taken out of context could be fodder for idle minds.
But why didn't Ann inset the names of say Rush Limbaugh, Matt Drudge or even Secretary of State Condeleza Rice? If it was a no harm no foul comment, then why not insert these heavy weight conservatives or perceived to be friends to conservatives names instead of John Edwards?
Most would say those names would make no sense. Who could ever even for a moment link those names to that word? Well, for one, if it was only about going after political correctness, then a name wouldn't matter.
But let's suppose for a moment someone did take the time to look for moments of where perception could be drawn from nothing. Wasn't it Rush who returned from a tropical island hop with nothing but viagra and male friends in tow? Rush described as a guys get away weekend. But why with viagra? And only men? One could infer what he meant not to imply.
And there has long been rumors about Matt Drudge. They are mostly floating in the liberal blogs, but certainly brought out here on this forum when he starts linking to stories that damage the credibility of this administration or other conservatives. To turn a phrase Ann, if the rumor does fit, why not use it?
Finally, what about Secretary Rice? Gracious, intellectual and until she had to begin displaying diplomacy in her job as Secretary of State the darling of the intellectual right. Any known male love interests? There may be, but I am unaware of them. A malicious mind could create all kinds of outcomes.
I'm not suggesting or inferring any of the above. But many will claim I am. It's for illustrative purposes. But think for a moment. Those who have given Ann a pass on this latest headline grabber would have winced had she inserted any of the above names instead of John Edwards. It would have been a national uprising had it come from the mouths of liberals.
You've got to be kidding. It wouldn't even warrant a mention in the news outlets where most Americans get their news.
Condi Rice was dating former football player Gene Washington. She's kinda had alot on her plate lately.
Sorry forgot to insert a national conservative uprising.
Fully agree.
"Donald Rumsfeld is a faggot." - It just doesn't compute, logically or rhetorically.
Then nobody would have heard of her because she would be the typical nut-job liberal, just like all the rest of them.
That there would be. Except in the case of Drudge, who would be the ....butt of many FR jokes.
Good golly. It's been over a week since she called that faggot Edwards a faggot. Get over it already.
I just wish Ann would have called him a "pussy" and had it over with. Who could have disagreed?
They've worked on hurting Ann like they worked on hurting Newt. They fear them both because they are convincingly correct.
Sure, that's what he wants you to think now, but back in the day ...
We would only have heard it on Rush. And then it would disappear, like all insults from liberals.
Look. No doubt that there is a different reaction depending on who has said what. It's easy to figure out. Just look at the political side of the victim. Conservative: excoriated, xxx-reamed, given continuous colonoscopies, tarred, feathered, quarted, crucified, boiled in oil, burned at the stake.
Liberal: 2 or 3 words in 1 or 2 newspapers.
In liberal la-la-land all conservatives are evil, racist, sexist, homophobe even if they are not. All liberals are kind, tolerant, do-gooders who would never say anything bad about anyone.
If a frog had wings.......
Short answer: She would have received a complete pass on her comment from most of her current critics, and would have been lauded by the remainder of them.
Any known male love interests?....
Why is this ANY of your business? Faggot DOES NOT mean gay. I REALLY DON'T CARE IF LIBS HAVE CHANGED THE MEANING. I AM NOT A LIB. As Ann has said, it is a playground (school) taunt. Period. She did not infer john edwards was GAY, just a WUSS. Heck, I still use gay as wuss, even upon myself ( I am so gay, almost all of the Hallmark commercials make me cry). GET OVER IT!
P.S. I am not gay, Hallmark commercials just make me cry.
John Edwards, wussified semi-closeted pansy with the primping needs of a supermodel, a.k.a. 'faggot'.
If he'd put on garish makeup, he'd be perfect for the gay pride parades.
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.