Ann Coulter's Real Sin

I’m going to disregard Jill’s suggestion and write about Ann Coulter. If you haven’t heard, speaking at the Conservative Political Action Conferece Friday, she said toward the end of her bit that she had some things to say about John Edwards but couldn’t because she would have to go to rehab after using the word “faggot.”

I have to wonder how many liberal bloggers used some variant of “I’d like to talk about Coulter, but I’d be in big trouble with my female readers for using the word [fill in blank].” Anyway, when Michelle Malkin says you’ve stepped over the line, maybe it is time to check into rehab.

The "faggot" line was offensive and cheap and made me, well, cringe. But it didn’t get me as swearing-at-the-monitor enraged as this bit I learned from Media Matters. This is while she is endorsing Mitt Romney as “the best” Presidential candidate:

By the way, before I let that slide, I do want to point out one thing that has been driving me crazy with the media, how they keep describing Mitt Romney's position as being "pro-gays, and that's going to upset right-wingers." Well, you know, screw you, I'm not anti-gay. We're against gay marriage. I don't want gays to be discriminated against. I mean, I think we have, in addition to blacks, I don't know why all gays aren't Republicans. I think we have the pro-gay position, which is anti-crime and for tax cuts. Gays make a lot of money, and they're victims of crime. I mean, the way -- no, they are. They should be with us. But the media portrays us. If they could get away with it, they would start saying, you know, "Mitt Romney, he's pro-civil rights, and that's going to upset conservatives."

The “faggot” remark is offensive in the standard way but this schpiel is offensive in so many ways I don’t know where to start. First off, the idea that the only objection conservatives have to gays is just laughable. I’m not going to find links to the following because it’s all well known. Conservatives have:

• Blocked gays from serving in the military.

• Blocked laws that would make it illegal to discriminate against gays in the workplace.


• Criticized a Supreme Court decision that decriminalized gay couples having consensual, private sex.


• Criticized gay couples for having children.


• Provided safe harbor for people who express virulent and unequivocal hatred.

And let’s not forget that her Edwards slam, together with those against Clinton and Gore, reminds us that she will be on the lookout for any man who is a fraction less than full-chested, gravelly-voiced, square-jawed, hairy-backed macho. And will denigrate that person with a slur that celebrates the history of burning gays at the stake. (But only if that person is liberal, no matter how pretty Tucker Carlson is.)

Aside from all that, Coulter insists that she is down with the gays. As long as they don't get married, raise children, serve their country, work for a living, have sex or mind being called names that carry an implicit threat of violence, gays are OK with Ann.

Reading Coulter’s words brings on images of old-time Southern segregationists insisting that they love Black people, then waxing about their nannies and housekeepers. I half-expected Coulter’s next words to be “Why, my decorator . . .”

But more than anything, Coulter’s sudden pro-gay stance illustrates her fundamental intellectual, as well as moral, bankruptcy. She cares little about actual debate. She is all about schtick. What she does is call attention to herself. At the same time, her politics is entirely of expediency. If her friends can win elections by bashing gays, gays are evil. If her guy has a soft-on-gays history, gays are actually OK. Both conservatism and liberalism are mutable depending on circumstances, so long as one stands poised to gain power and the other serves as a convenient boogey-man.

Somehow I hate hypocrisy more than I hate hate.

Ohio Roundup

A necessarily incomplete survey of reaction on other Ohio blogs. As expected, Jill is all over it with two posts prior to the just-ignore-her-she'll-go-away take. Anthony at Blue Ohioan had a reaction to the Edwards fundraising appeal hooked on the incident similar to mine. The breathless tone of the email made Team Edwards sound all verklempt about the slur. Rule of thumb: If someone calls your candidate a fag, make sure the response doesn't make him sound like a sissy.

Joseph Hughes finds a pro-Romney site that defends the remark and draws a bizarre false equivalency with remarks by Howard Dean. You can find that cross-posted at AOG and ProgOH. BSB has the video up. Also reaction from Stubborn Lib, Bill Sloat, Blue Bexley and OhioDave. Sorry if I missed anyone.