Ann Coulter? Oh, Yes, Republicans Have A Real Problem

Long post. Brace yourselves.

Here's the E&P story on Ann Coulter's "faggot" reference to John Edwards, and the notable lack of MSM coverage, which John Aravosis at AmericaBlog also comments on. Like, there was almost none.

Coulter's even getting brickbats from her fellow wingnuts. From E&P:

The remarks also drew disapproval from some popular conservative commentators. Ed Morrissey on his Captain's Quarters blog wrote: "Yeah, that's just what CPAC needs -- an association with homophobia. Nice work, Ann."

Michelle Malkin expressed disapproval, and at her Hot Air site regular contributor "Bryan" wrote: "I’m no fan of John Edwards, but that’s just a stupid joke. It’s over the line. The laughter it generated across the room was more than a little annoying. Last year it was 'raghead.' This year it’s calling John Edwards a 'faggot.' Two years in a row, Coulter has finished up an otherwise sharp CPAC routine with an obnoxious slur that liberals will fling at conservatives for years to come. Thanks, Ann."

Well, one wingnut and one fairly responsible commentator. Sorry, Ed, but you're known by the company you keep.

Joe Sudbay at AmericaBlog has a good post on the Coulter story that brings up at least one very interesting observation.

During the 2004 campaign, comedian Whoopi Goldberg told a joke about George Bush at a fundraiser attended by John Kerry. The right wing erupted and the media went agog over it. The Bush White House led the charge against the comedian trying to keep the story alive. Ken Mehlman was particularly riled up. Then everyone in the right wing demanded John Kerry apologize and rebuke Whoopi, who is, again, a comedian.

The traditional media does not hold GOP candidates accountable for the hate speech of top GOP commentators. Didn't hear a peep about Coulter on the Today Show this morning. Even though Coulter is a frequent guest on that show. Besides Fox and UPI, the only outlet to cover Coulter's faggot remark was the LA Times and guess what? No response from the GOP Presidential candidates.

And you won't hear one.

Andrew Sullivan was apparently an eyewitness. He's never been a fan of Coulter, but I think he's finally waking up to some harsh realities:

When you see her in such a context, you realize that she truly represents the heart and soul of contemporary conservative activism, especially among the young. The standing ovation for Romney was nothing like the eruption of enthusiasm that greeted her. One young conservative male told her he was single and asked for her cell-phone number. Other young Republicans were almost overwhelmed in her presence. "When are you going to get your own show?" one asked, tremulously. Then there's her insistence on Christianism as the central message for Republicans: "There are more people voting on Christian moral values than on tax cuts." This from an unmarried woman who wears dresses that are close to bikinis on the morning news. Hey, it's Democrats who are Godless.

He even admits it, which is not something you're normally going to find from the right side of the aisle:

I guess I've been a bit of a smug ironist who just got mugged by conservative reality.

I have to allow, though, that's just another way Sullivan doesn't fit the conservative mold -- eventually, he'll admit he was wrong.

More compare-and-contrast from Glenn Greenwald:

There are much more important topics to discuss -- like the anonymous commenters at Huffington Post and the bad words said by the bloggers hired for low-level positions by the Edwards campaign. Those are matters of the gravest importance meriting the most solemn condemnation and righteous outrage from all decent people. Those HuffPost commenters have uttered terrible thoughts, and that shows the anger, venom and hatred on the left, among liberals. It is cause for great alarm -- and for headlines.

But the single most prestigious political event for conservatives of the year is a place where conservatives go to hear Democrats called faggots, Arabs called ragheads, and Supreme Court justices labeled as deserving of murder -- not by anonymous, unidentifiable blog commenters, but by one of their most popular featured speakers.

One error I found in Greenwald's post -- he refers to the "books she wrote." I think he really means the books she plagiarized.

My own feelings about Coulter are simply this: She's as good as admitted that she's in it for the money. If she were working the Strip at Vegas, she probably couldn't make a living, so I suppose if you're going to be a whore, be a whore with a fan club that includes Mitt Romney and Dick Cheney.

(By the way, where are the Cheneys in all this? If it's not appropriate to use the word lesbian when it happens to be the truth, why is it OK to use the word "faggot" when it's not? Mary? Any comment?)

Greenwald goes on:

This is a movement propelled by an insatiable hunger for more slaughter and more wars. It is centrally dependent upon hatred of an Enemy, foreign or domestic -- the Terrorist, the Immigrant, the Faggot, the Raghead, and most of all, the Liberal. As John Dean brilliantly documented, that is the only real feature that binds the "conservative" movement at this point, the only attribute that gives it identity and purpose. It does not have any affirmative ideas, only a sense of that which it hates and wants to destroy. So to watch as the crowd wildly cheers an unapologetic hatemonger is perfectly natural and not at all surprising. . . .

This is not about a single comment or isolated remark. The more Ann Coulter says these things, the more popular she becomes in this movement. What this is about is that she reflects exactly what sort of political movement this is. She reflects its true impulses and core beliefs. If that were not the case, why would she continue to receive top billing at their most prestigious events, and why would she continue to be lavished with rock star-adoration by the party faithful?

Which brings us back to the comments by Aravosis and Sudbay: Where is the press? You know, the one with the liberal bias?

(crickets)

"Not newsworthy." Sure.

Apparently The Malcontent doesn't think Coulter's remarks are newsworthy at all. Nope -- the big anti-gay, hateful, bigoted story of the week is a Latino comedian on an HBO special. I'm happy to say that GayPatriot comes down on the side of reason on this one -- with the caveat, of course, that Libruls are just as bad, if not worse.

But let me offer this observation: I have no doubt that Ann’s remarks will make all of the national news networks and will be endlessly repeated. Fine. They should be assailed.

But why the complete silence by the same networks on the Leftist Bloggers cheering the attempted assassination of the Vice President of the United States?

But, strangely enough, no links to all those hateful leftists. And, if you'll note the posts by the guys at AmericaBlog above, all the national news networks are ignoring the Coulter story, at least at this point.

Nice try, Bruce.

Captain Ed, I think, hits it on the head:

Also, if CPAC continues to invite Coulter to these events, then unfortunately, these little rhetorical bombs reflect on conservatives. We just spent most of the week criticizing John McCain for not meeting the conservative base at CPAC. If Coulter said this in an interview on her own, it would not have reflected on CPAC or conservatives but on herself. Yesterday, though, she used our platform for that little nugget of vileness -- and some in the audience cheered her for it. Conclusions can reasonably be drawn from that.

Yes, conclusions can be and are being drawn from that. See Glenn Greenwald's post on it.

Reading through the comments at Captain Ed's, I think I would agree with Greenwald that the Republicans have a real problem. As long as they're lionizing "spokesmen" like Coulter, they will be identified with all that nastiness. Amazingly, to me, there are still those who are chanting the "lifestyle/choice/moral degenerate" mantras that, to anyone on the front lines, have absolutely no contact with reality. They should avail themselves of some information that doesn't come from James Dobson (which source, is, let's face it, worse than having no information at all).

Update:

Before I even got it posted. OK, I was wrong about the Republican presidential candidates not responding. Well, two of them, at least. From the NYT Blog:

Democrats were not the only denouncing Ms. Coulter. “The comments were wildly inappropriate,” said Brian Jones, a spokesman for Senator John McCain, a Republican candidate for president who did not attend.

Kevin Madden, a spokesman for Mitt Romney, the former Massachusetts governor, said: “It was an offensive remark. Governor Romney believes all people should be treated with dignity and respect.

Neither one is strong enough for me, actually, but McCain at least gets a point. Romney gets half a point. If he rejects Coulter's endorsement, he gets another point and a half. (Why a half-point for Romney? I'll tell you: the minute you get into the "all people should. . . " thing, you've softened your remark. It's no longer a response, it's a platitude. No full points for platitudes.)

Be interesting to see how this develops.

Update II:

Robbie of The Malcontent wasn't fast enough to condemn Coulter to suit me, he thinks. (See the Comments). OK -- he's redeemed himself. Big time.

Naked bigotry has a way of clarifying issues and rendering certain arguments impotent. During the civil rights struggle during the 1960s, few images were more powerful than the television coverage of black citizens being attacked by dogs or assaulted with fire hoses. That, more than anything, galvanized average citizens to correct injustice. It is no doubt unfair to compare Coulter’s one remark to the severity of those times and incidents - they’re not comparable - but the sentiment is similar: when injustice and bigotry are stripped of their linguistic distance and placed in front of the average citizen, the average citizen shifts.

I think Ann Coulter has just given us one of our best weapons to combat anti-gay sentiment in the 2008 campaign. I hope we use it wisely.

I think he's right. It's an elegantly crafted and thoughtful post -- read the whole thing.

I should point out something that I think is appropriate here: I have almost never voted a straight ticket in my life. Three times, and I've been voting for a long time. Two of those times were the last two presidential elections. I will continue to vote a straight Democratic ticket in national elections until the Christianists are relegated to the fringes of the Republican party and hateful demagogues like Coulter are no longer slobbered over at major Republican political events.