Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

In Support of Ann Coulter
Monday, March 5, 2007 | Kristinn

Posted on 03/05/2007 12:51:58 AM PST by kristinn

It is with growing dismay and frustration that I am watching so many of my friends and acquaintances in the conservative community attack Ann Coulter for her comments pointing out that saying the word 'faggot' can get you sent to a rehabilitation clinic.

That she said it in the context of primping pretty boy Democrat presidential candidate John Edwards has sent conservatives to the fainting couch in an episode of 'why I never!' mass hysteria.

Ann Coulter has walked point for conservatives for almost a decade. She has been assaulted, threatened and stalked. She requires bodyguards for protection. Liberals believe they are justified in physically attacking Ann. I heard one say so at CPAC--not in response to her rehab joke, but because Ann 'insults people.'

Ann has been an early and loyal friend of Free Republic. She is one of the few prominent conservatives who regularly breaks bread with FReepers. Her friendship is now being repayed by FReepers who want her driven out of conservatism.

That so many conservatives want Ann banned from CPAC is a sad indicator of the state of conservatism. It is not Ann Coulter's fault that Republicans lost both houses of Congress. It is not Ann Coulter's fault that President Bush is not popular. Sacrificing Ann Coulter on the altar of political correctness will not win the elections of 2008 nor will it prevent conservatives from being sent to rehab for uttering politically incorrect words and ideas.

After Ann uttered the words that have given so many conservatives the vapors, the line for her booksigning at CPAC was just as long as usual. I know, I was standing in that line. If CPAC attendees were so outraged about Ann's remarks, it was not manifested there. I didn't learn about the controversy until I read about it online later that night.

I spent the next day at CPAC. Ann's remarks were not a hot topic. I know because the only time I heard it talked about was when I brought it up. Those I spoke with about it were not upset.

I do not wish to speak ill of my friends and acquaintances who are dumping on Ann, other than to express my disappointment. I do wish they'd reconsider and stop attacking a friend who has walked point for them. Liberals must be laughing themselves silly as they watch us take out someone they've been wanting to eliminate for years.


TOPICS: Your Opinion/Questions
KEYWORDS: anncoulter; coulter
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 301-320321-340341-360 ... 381 next last
To: soccermom
Lots of conservatives condemned her comments almost immediately -- independent of any demands by the left -- because they genuinely considered her words to be inappropriate.

Many republicans react to incidents like these just like Pavlov's dog - no one need say anything, the tone has been set and the party faithful tuck their tails at the slightest whiff of controversy.

All this complaining reeks of moral posturing anyway and its premise is an acceptance (made manifest by an ultra-sensitivity) of the characterizations of the right the left has made for years.

321 posted on 03/06/2007 12:56:13 PM PST by skeeter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 319 | View Replies]

To: soccermom

If you do not know the context in which Ann Coulter writes than I can understand why you think her statement is uncivil. However, I have read all her books and I read her weekly column and I understand her writings and because of that I do not and will not take offense from it. Anyone who does, is acting "holier than thou" or appeasing to the dems. That's my story.


322 posted on 03/06/2007 1:19:46 PM PST by taxesareforever (Never forget Matt Maupin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 319 | View Replies]

Lots of conservatives condemned her comments almost immediately

Many conservative commentators were shocked when conservatives readers roared back on the conservative's forums and blogs in support of Ann.

It is a Pavlovian response. The MSM raises their newspapers to swat the offensive conservative and there is a collective cringe by the politicians. After many beatings, the trainer sometimes regrets overstepping the boundery too often.

323 posted on 03/06/2007 1:54:45 PM PST by listenhillary (You can lead a man to reason, but you can't make him think)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 319 | View Replies]

To: ReignOfError

Agreed. Ann may have helped Edwards in the short term. The difference, though, is I don't think you found too many liberals rallying to Sistah Soljah's defense. That is the tightrope our GOP candidates face. God forbid they repudiate Ann Coulter and be considered not a "true" conservative!


324 posted on 03/06/2007 1:56:44 PM PST by soccermom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 320 | View Replies]

To: skeeter
Okay, but this isn't just the usual suspects. This is Michelle Malkin, Laura Ingraham, Hugh Hewitt etc. These aren't people who recoil in a Pavlovian way. Actually, what I consider Pavlovian is those who will entrench themselves in such a way as to never, ever condemn someone like Ann simply because she's "our gal".
325 posted on 03/06/2007 2:00:18 PM PST by soccermom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 321 | View Replies]

To: taxesareforever

I'm well aware of the context in which Ann writes. She is witty and acerbic. Although, I don't think her first? book was like that. I think it was called "High Crimes and Misdemeanors" or something like that. (I'd have to go down and sift through a pile in the basement to get the exact title.) It was a well-argued, factually-based book indicting Bill Clinton. As I recall, that one was not her typical biting wit, but based more on her legal knowledge. The argument that she is being "taken out of context", is starting to carry as much water as "The dog ate my homework." You can call Ann's words many things, but "civil" does not come to mind. Even Sean Hannity, who predictably defends her only by pointing to the harsh words of others, acknowledges that she is acerbic. That is her style. Now again, "your story" can be whatever you want it to be. If you don't mind or even appreciate her style, go ahead. Just don't pretend it wasn't a personal attack, which it clearly was, or that those who condemn it can't be conservative and sincere.


326 posted on 03/06/2007 2:17:03 PM PST by soccermom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 322 | View Replies]

To: ReignOfError
You started in with the overheated "war" rhetoric. What do you think happens in a war?

Okaaay, Yeah. So you think every time the word war is used that people are being killed? So what are the casualties from the culture war?

She was engaging in schoolyard taunts, and anyone who considers that an appropriate tactic when discussing important issues is someone who shouldn't be taken seriously.

She was telling a J O K E! The joke was a combo on the wackiness of Holliweird and the Grey's Anatomy star going to therapy for using the word faggot, and the prissiness of Edwards. Coulter's works stand alone on disecting the liberal mind and agenda. She uses cutting sarcasm and wit, and the left takes her seriously, because she roasts them.

When did it become "PC" to aver that some words should not be used in polite company?

Wake up! Politics has never been polite company. Do I use these words at a church social? No. Do I use them to describe others? Yes. The real world doesn't discuss issues using Ivy-league preapproved language. Ann is a real world person. Apparently, you are not.

A great many Americans liberals see "faggot" in the same light as a racial epithet.

There. I fixed it for you.

Take Coulter;s remark word for word, but substitute "n----r" and Barack Obama

You can't even say nigger? Watch MTV once. People call each other nigger all the time. In the real world people get called names all the time. Tough people roll their eyes and throw some back at 'em. Weak people cry to their PC mommies and seek therapy. I bet you support hate-crime legislation.

It is this politically correct dialog (that is only used to burn Conservatives, BTW) which is neutering the GOP. You want to see the conservative base get energized? Watch what happens if someone like Gingrich uses Coulter as a spokesperson. Sensitive Ivy leaguers, like you, will cling to Rudy, but the grassroots will flock to a straight talker.

Sincerely
327 posted on 03/06/2007 2:32:43 PM PST by ScubieNuc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 318 | View Replies]

To: soccermom
Actually, what I consider Pavlovian is those who will entrench themselves in such a way as to never, ever condemn someone like Ann simply because she's "our gal".

Coutler disembowels her critics nicely enough on her own. Besides, I appreciate and totally agree with the actual intent of her comment, so why would I condemn it?

Anyway, the world doesn't need to hear my 'condemnation' of anybody - heaven knows I'm as guilty as anyone of the occasional offensive comment. The difference between me and many of Ann's detractors is I understand that.

328 posted on 03/06/2007 2:35:42 PM PST by skeeter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 325 | View Replies]

To: ScubieNuc
Okaaay, Yeah. So you think every time the word war is used that people are being killed?

Yes. That's what a war means. Words have meanings, right?

So what are the casualties from the culture war?

It isn't a war.

That was my point.

So you put forth the proposition that there's a "war" and that Coulter is somehow a general in it. Whom has she led? What has she planned? What has she won? All she's done is blurt out offensive epithets every now and then, offending some people and delighting others who like to see them offended. That is not leadership. That is Tourette's Syndrome.

She was telling a J O K E!

It wasn't funny. It was like the entire career of Andrew "Dice" Clay. It's shock, it's mean, it adds nothing, it's useless, and it's calculated to offend so that you can then wave the victim flag when someone gets offended. "It's a joke" is not a defense. It's still tasteless.

And if you're going to continue to define "real conservatives" as those who want to be identified with that kind of thing, you're going to find yourself all alone at that party.

329 posted on 03/06/2007 2:55:26 PM PST by ReignOfError (`)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 327 | View Replies]

To: soccermom
Just don't pretend it wasn't a personal attack, which it clearly was, or that those who condemn it can't be conservative and sincere.

It was a HUMOROUS personal attack. That's Ann's style. Those that condemn it might as well be linked arm in arm with the "party of ethics" (democrats). Wouldn't it be nice if as many of you, who call themselves conservatives, would create such a furor over the daily personal attacks that are leveled by the libs at consertives? Sometimes, no, make that many times, it appears that this country has one party only, and it isn't the GOP. Sad, truly sad.

330 posted on 03/06/2007 3:04:53 PM PST by taxesareforever (Never forget Matt Maupin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 326 | View Replies]

To: ReignOfError

Unlike Clay who throws out disgusting sexual f-bombs, Ann throws out commentary for a reason. Your post is a perfect example of what she was able to accomplish.

Kinda like when Arnold had to apologize for his girlyman phrase. Did that one offend you too?

Pray for W and Our Troops


331 posted on 03/06/2007 3:08:51 PM PST by bray (Redeploy to Tehran)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 329 | View Replies]

To: ScubieNuc
You can't even say nigger?

I can say "nigger." I can even type it. I can also type mick, spic, wop, daygo, beaner, bohunk, chink, slope, gook, slant, cracker, coon-ass, sambo, hajji, coon, towel-head, rag-head, camel jockey, redskin, faggot, dyke, and all kinds of other rude words. Using them is not an act of courage. It's just rude, and does not earn the medal you want to pin on Ann Coulter.

Watch MTV once. People call each other nigger all the time.

I do not intend to vote for any of those people. I do not intend to vote for anyone who supports them or courts their support. You do realize that there's a difference between entertaining people and governing them, right? If Ann Coulter were a rapper, I couldn't give a damn whm she calls what. But she was the closing speaker for a group of people who want to win election and run the government.

In the real world people get called names all the time. Tough people roll their eyes and throw some back at 'em.

And then they don't vote for them. It's really very simple. Winning elections requires attracting people. Repelling people is not a productive strategy.

Weak people cry to their PC mommies and seek therapy. I bet you support hate-crime legislation.

Yes, I do. Do you believe that when teenaged punks spray-paint swastikas on a synagogue, the teens should be congratulated for their courage and the Jews should be told to get over it?

Yes. The real world doesn't discuss issues using Ivy-league preapproved language. Ann is a real world person. Apparently, you are not.

Apparently, to you, "keepin' it real" means being rude and abusive. in a couple of paragraphs, you've gonr from decrying gangsta rap culture to embracing it.

A great many Americans liberals see "faggot" in the same light as a racial epithet.

There. I fixed it for you.

It wasn't broken.

Would you be pleased if your child called a classmate a faggot? Would you pat him on the back and buy him a cookie? I don't think it's unreasonable to ask at least as much of our political leaders as we ask of our third-graders.

Watch what happens if someone like Gingrich uses Coulter as a spokesperson.

I've never seen what happens when you tie a brick to an anchor, but I could venture a guess. My guess is that it won't float.

Sensitive Ivy leaguers, like you, will cling to Rudy, but the grassroots will flock to a straight talker.

Could you pack a few more assumptions in one sentence?

I'm not particularly sensitive. Call me a faggot, a nigger, a wop, or whatever you like. I'll laugh and call you an idiot. But no one has ever won an election by building a coalition of me.

Ivy-leaguer? Not quite.

Cling to Rudy? I'd rather not stand that close.

"The grassroots will flock to a straight talker?" History suggests otherwise. Smooth talkers beat straight talkers most of the time, at least since Truman beat Dewey.

332 posted on 03/06/2007 3:33:26 PM PST by ReignOfError (`)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 327 | View Replies]

To: bray
Unlike Clay who throws out disgusting sexual f-bombs, Ann throws out commentary for a reason.

Clay and Coulter both push the envelope for a reason. The same reason, in fact: It sells.

Your post is a perfect example of what she was able to accomplish.

What she accomplished was to convince me that she's a mean person with a juvenile sense of humor. Big win, there. I don't doubt that she's a smart woman -- Jerry Springer is a smart man. And somewhere along the way, each reached a calculated decision in terms of what they could sell.

Kinda like when Arnold had to apologize for his girlyman phrase. Did that one offend you too?

It didn't offend me. I thought it was dumb. First of all, because implying that feminine = weak and stupid is a dumbassed move when most of your constituents have two X chromosomes, but more so because it reinforced the belief that he couldn't articulate a political message more complicated than one of his old movie lines (or in the "girly men" case, a TV parody of his old movie lines).

All things being equal, I'd rather vote for a grown-up.

333 posted on 03/06/2007 3:50:00 PM PST by ReignOfError (`)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 331 | View Replies]

To: listenhillary
Ann is not a racist homophobic bigot. She is being painted as one with glee by the media.

The paint bucket and brush are in her own hands. The media did not put the words in her mouth.

334 posted on 03/06/2007 3:52:18 PM PST by ReignOfError (`)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 304 | View Replies]

To: ReignOfError

Because she used a word she is a racist homophobic bigot? Let him that is without sin cast the first stone.


335 posted on 03/06/2007 4:28:32 PM PST by listenhillary (You can lead a man to reason, but you can't make him think)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 334 | View Replies]

To: taxesareforever
Those that condemn it might as well be linked arm in arm with the "party of ethics" (democrats). Wouldn't it be nice if as many of you, who call themselves conservatives, would create such a furor over the daily personal attacks that are leveled by the libs at conservatives.

Again, therein lies the crux of the disagreement. Heaven forbid anyone actually condemn anything a conservative does, lest they be "linked arm in arm with democrats!" Did those like Ann Coulter and Laura Ingraham , who condemned the Dubai ports deal, have themselves "linked arm in arm with Schumer"? Does that philosophy guide you all the time? Don't ever admit your kid misbehaved at school -- you might as well be linked with the NEA! Don't criticize Mel Gibson, or you might as well be arm in arm with the New York Times. Don't admit the ball was out of bounds -- you might as well be rooting for the other team!

The fact is there are plenty of threads here highlighting and condemning the outrageous comments by libs. And we can count on every conservative pundit and even the not-so-conservative Bill O'Reilly to highlight their vitriolic comments. If they don't get as much reaction here, it is because ~surprise~ there is no debate. We all agree their actions are reprehensible. It would be like posting, "The sun rose today" and expecting people to join in a lively debate on the topic. I would expect liberals to hold their side accountable and, even if they won't, we should hold ours accountable.
336 posted on 03/06/2007 4:37:55 PM PST by soccermom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 330 | View Replies]

To: ReignOfError

"That is not leadership. That is Tourette's Syndrome."

ROFLOL!!!!!


337 posted on 03/06/2007 4:41:43 PM PST by soccermom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 329 | View Replies]

To: ReignOfError

"I've never seen what happens when you tie a brick to an anchor..." ROFLOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


338 posted on 03/06/2007 4:45:44 PM PST by soccermom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 332 | View Replies]

To: ReignOfError

Me Too. Coulter '08!!

Pray for W and Our Troops


339 posted on 03/06/2007 5:07:14 PM PST by bray (Redeploy to Tehran)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 333 | View Replies]

To: soccermom
I would expect liberals to hold their side accountable and, even if they won't, we should hold ours accountable.

Hold accountable? What a joke. There is no acccountability in government. And besides, Ann Coulter is not employed by the government. Are you appointing certain people to be authorized spokespeople for the GOP? If you are, what are your guidelines? So if I say something that is in your mind derogatory are you going to demand an apology? If you are you got your work cut out for yourself because there are millions of people who may be saying something which may be derogatory to you. I don't envy your job as GOP word and words master meister in charge of selecting who should be chastised. Besides, who says your opinion is right? Everyone has an opinion and yours certainly is not going to agree with everyone. So enjoy your own selective criticism because I won't.

340 posted on 03/06/2007 5:26:24 PM PST by taxesareforever (Never forget Matt Maupin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 336 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 301-320321-340341-360 ... 381 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson