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.
What is this Vanity Saturday? Hey what if Ann Coulter is a Faggot?
She didn't step over a line. The masses who condemn her as though she were serious are the ones who stepped over the line.
Well, that comment wouldn't make sense to me. Why? Because conservatives have balls? [Ring] That's Michelle Malkin calling. I'll put her on speaker.
Exactly who's line are we talking about here? She was making a point about how someone else's use of a word (faggot) landed them in rehab. She did not cross over any line as far as I'm concerned. Liberals do far far worse on a daily basis and get a complete pass all the time. The politically correct crowd can go scr#w themselves as far as I'm concerned. And let's face it, Edwards isn't exactly what you'd call a manly guy. Perhaps Ann should use less politiclly charged language next time, like "Pretty Boy," "Pansy," or "Candy A$$"
She did what she does so very well. She set up a linguistic trap and Rinos and Libs jumped into it, lying on the floor in the touild of her net screaming, wailing, excoriating and indisputable proving her point.
She does it and they fall for it every single time.
The word faggot hit such a deep cord because the shallow chested liberals know at a deep level that it is a perfect descriptor for their men-folk.
So if the use was so equisite, then why not drop a conservative name?
Have I really found JEFF CHANDLER??? Formerly of Hamilton, Ont.? THE arch nemesis of the former Liberal MP Beth Phinney? Is it really you????
Ding Ding Ding,,, There it is!
Crisp or sharp tongued language NY style and fly over country language are far apart.
The point is to set a linguistic trap for Liberals/Rinos to jump into.Then to sit back and watch the Liberals/Rinos scram, shout etc. etc. in ratification and proof positive of the point.
What she did was to set up a verbal snare for the politically correct to fall into.
They did. As they do. Every. Single. Time.
What if a frog's butt wasn't water tight? He'd drown when he jumped into the pond.
If Coulter were a liberal she would no doubt have gotten an Image Award from the NAACP and received a standing ovation.
It's the only way I can explain Isaiah Washington using the "slur" and being honored and feted by the NAACP whereas Ann Coulter uses the same word and is pilloried.
Typical to miss the 'rest of the story' here. . .
. . . he did have a girl friend, post Marta and he did say that the 'good's had been in his suitcase from months earlier. Makes sense to me; as I am forever finding things from 'last trip' in my bag. Often left casually as a 'may need item' and then forgotten. . .So see this as a fair and innoucuous explanation; so why be stupid about it; save to make one's own personal/political point.
And of course, had he remembered; not likely that it would have been caught. While baggage relatively 'safe' per private jet; Rush has never been; particularly in 'Orange County'. . .
And of course, had John Edwards ever been seriously 'diagnosed' as something other than the family man he is; Anne would not have 'gone there'. . .there would have been no reason for controversy.
Meantime; let the Libs just stick to their Nazi comparisons of GW. . .and for that matter; Rush as well.
Could be some of them don't like Edwards either and this is just 'safe means'. . .But; more to their own truth; it is just their arrogant tactics of 'public censure' to intimate anyone who might even think of 'going there'; to disparage the 'who' of these people. They cannot. . .will NOT tolerate it; period.
In the most foolish of manner; they say far more than they realize; when by example; they show that 'zero tolerance' mean something.
Then she'd be Michael Moore.
So, a liberal calls a conservative a name!?! Uhm that sort of registers on the "so what" scale. Liberals are always calling consevatives names, it's just we can rise above it and see them for what they are.
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.