The Pearl-Clutching of the Left

The other day, Ann Coulter called John Edwards a faggot. Since then, every leftist blabbermouth has been crawling out of the woodwork demanding that conservatives everywhere denounce Ann. I did so, largely because it was a good opportunity to state my growing distaste for Coulter’s brand of humor.

Coulter’s intemperate remarks have allowed liberals to trash CPAC and label anyone there (particularly anyone who clapped) as homophobic haters who “showed their true colors.” Of course, such blather is complete nonsense, but that doesn’t stop the left from using the fodder.

Now, the left isn’t merely asking conservatives to denounce and shun Coulter, they have the audacity to say that there’s nobody on the left to compare, and that liberals never condone violence against their enemies. Gosh, I guess they don’t watch Bill Maher, who thought the assassination of the Vice President would be a good thing.

Or listen to Julianne Malveaux, who said about Justice Clarence Thomas,

“The man is on the Court. You know, I hope his wife feeds him lots of eggs and butter and he dies early like many black men do, of heart disease. Well, that’s how I feel. He is an absolutely reprehensible person.”

Maybe they don’t read. That would explain why they’ve forgottenNicholas Baker’s book Checkpoint, which has two characters discussing assassinating the POTUS. I guess that’s not violent.

I’m sure that when the St. Petersburg, Florida Democratic Club took out an ad advocating assassination of former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, it wasn’t nearly as viscious as Ann Coulter saying a baseball bat is the most effective way of talking to Democrats these days.

What about Charles Brooker of the Guardian who said we “need” for someone to assassinate President Bush?

“John Wilkes Booth, Lee Harvey Oswald, John Hinckley Jr – where are you now that we need you?”

Ah, but those are just isolated crackpots, the moonbats would say. They aren’t anybody big among liberals, selling millions of books like Ann Coulter does.

Well, there’s NPR’s well-known Supreme Court reporter Nina Totenberg, who said “[I]f there is retributive justice [Sen. Jesse Helms] will get AIDS from a transfusion, or one of his grandchildren will get it.” Is that violent enough? But it’s not like that’s the only thing Totenberg has said. She also said of General Jerry Boykin “I hope he’s not long for this world.”

And let’s not forget Ward Churchill, who said the people killed on 9/11 were “little Eichmanns” who deserved it.

There’s also the numerous lies perpetrated by Michael Moore, his labelling terrorists in Iraq “freedom fighters,” and that he sat with Jimmy Carter at the 2004 Democratic National Convention.

How about celebrities? We have Al Franken joking about the execution of Scooter Libby and Karl Rove. There’s Linda Ronstadt saying after the Republican victory in 2004 “We have a new bunch of Hitlers.” There’s Cameron Diaz, who thought rape could be legalized with a Republican victory. There’s Richard Dreyfuss calling for the president’s impeachment because he disagrees with various policies. And there’s Alec Baldwin, who called the vice president a terrorist.

Is that enough?

This, of course, isn’t including the numerous comparisons of Republicans to Nazis (see here, here, here, here, here, and here for a tiny sampling of the 1,370,000 hits one gets with “Republicans” and “Nazis”).

I’ll stop here. The pearl-clutching by lefties over Ann Coulter is both ridiculous and hypocritical. They cry, they whine that a guy did a survey that showed liberals use vulgarity 18 times as much as conservatives, they point fingers at Ann Coulter and compile convenient lists of offensive remarks by her (would that they did the same to any liberal), but they turn around and call Republicans every vile epithet possible. They accuse Republicans of wanting to starve children, of approving of rape, of terrorism, homophobia, racism, sexism, and global warming. It’s inane for liberals to complain that “conservatives are worse” in the war of words when they pile on the overheated rhetoric to such a degree.

Cross-posted at Gold-Plated Witch on Wheels.

UPDATE: Patterico lists more than 20 examples of prominent liberals using invective at least as vile as “faggot.”

57 Comments

  1. Sharon, how many of the people whom you named have been invited to speak at an event equivalent to the Conservative Political Action Conference, as Ann Coulter was invited?

  2. How about celebrities? We have Al Franken joking about the execution of Scooter Libby and Karl Rove. There’s Linda Ronstadt saying after the Republican victory in 2004 “We have a new bunch of Hitlers.” There’s Cameron Diaz, who thought rape could be legalized with a Republican victory. There’s Richard Dreyfuss calling for the president’s impeachment because he disagrees with various policies. And there’s Alec Baldwin, who called the vice president a terrorist.

    Didn’t Baldwin say about Ken Starr that he should have his house burned down and his entire family killed?

  3. Bill Maher is the epitome of unfunny. I used to watch his show in the beginning on Comedy Central when he could actually be amusing. But then he became a Big Shot, and I think the success went to his head, because nowadays all he does is act like a jerk.

    PS I believe it was Maher who, a week or so after 9/11, was praising the terrorists for how “brave” they were.

  4. J asked:

    Sharon, how many of the people whom you named have been invited to speak at an event equivalent to the Conservative Political Action Conference, as Ann Coulter was invited?

    Perhaps you would consider Nina Totenberg, mentioned above by Sharon, who, as a reporter for National Public Radio, is paid by the United States government, as comparable?

    It doesn’t take a lot of looking to find stupid things said, by partisans of both sides. The lovely Miss Coulter is from the right, and just happens to have made the last stupid statement, but she’ll be old news, when the next idiot says something smarmy, in a week or two.

  5. Dana: Perhaps you would consider Nina Totenberg, mentioned above by Sharon, who, as a reporter for National Public Radio, is paid by the United States government, as comparable?

    Nope. That’s more the equivalent of Jesse Helms opposing AIDS research because “We’ve got to have some common sense about a disease transmitted by people deliberately engaging in unnatural acts” – direct quote from Helms in 1995, which you can confirm yourself by Googling. If you argue that elected representatives are free to be as bigoted and stupid as they like, as that comment absolutely was, fair enough – but that’s where Totenburg’s comment came from: Helms openly said, in 1995, that there was no point spending money to alleviate or cure AIDS because it was mostly transmitted by “unnatural acts”. To anyone who’s lost someone they care about to AIDS, or indeed to anyone who looks at the havoc the spread of this disease has caused in sub-Saharan Africa, Helms’ comment was far uglier than Totenburg’s riposte.

    But, more to the point, William G. Boykin, who – in uniform, when deputy undersecretary of defense – a position he still holds – claimed that when Muslims worship the God of Abraham, they are worshipping “an idol”, claimed that America is a “Christian nation”, and that the war on terrorism is a clash between Judeo-Christian values and Satan.

    There are at least 4000 Muslims on active duty in the US armed forces. Yet Boykin is still being paid by the US government to be the deputy undersecretary of defense, and has never expressed any contrition to the thousands of US soldiers and the hundreds of thousands of US citizens whose faith he so grossly insulted. From the site Sharon linked to, though, Totenburg promptly retracted her comment about Boykin:

    When the other panelists were taken aback by her wish (“You putting a hit out on this guy or what?” and, “What is this, the Sopranos?”), she quickly backtracked: “In his job, in his job, in his job, please, please, in his job.”

  6. My biggest concern is that Amanda Matcotte hold the copyright on the phrase “pearl clutching,” and that if she sees this, we might have to pay her royalties!

  7. Jes, secure the goalposts in one place for the remainder of this discussion. If your position is that only persons who are invited to speak at a major political event qualify, then fine. But don’t then come back with some other criteria when this one gets shot down.

    I gave copious examples of quotes by a plethora of lefties saying things at least as bad as any remark made by Coulter. That you would decide it is only important that her remark was made at CPAC shows how paper thin your argument is.

    Does it not count that Michael Moore was a featured guest at the Democratic National Convention in 2004? Or that all of the leftwing celebrities get television time just because of who they are, then say outrageous things?

    Your defense of Nina Totenberg is absolutely despicable. She shouldn’t have made her remark about Boykin. Period. To then try to retract it because she got heat from the panel is just a whitewash.

    But, please. Stick with one criterion this time. Don’t change it in three posts when this one is shot down in flames. Personally, I think 13 different examples of whacked out leftists spouting off compared to Ann Coulter puts this deceitful lie to rest.

  8. Suck it up Sharon. I thought a mosquito had landed on my ear then I realized that was you.

  9. See update. Patterico has many more examples of leftist hate speech.

    And you assume I’d want to be anywhere close to you. That was your first mistake, Lisa.

  10. Next week someone will say something which will have you on your faux-fainting couch Sharon. Be a big girl and realize that this is politics. When you invite a moron to speak for you at a major political event and she calls someone a faggot (then everyone cheers and claps) expect to get the shit slapped out of you. Didn’t you say the SAME thing about Amanda Marcotte (that we should all just admit when we fucked up)?

    Why can’t you be a woman and suck that shit up. You cannot RESIST whining about all the people who said stuff that made you cry and tremble with anger. So what. Get over yourself. Like I said, next week it’ll be your turn again.

  11. Oh you are really pissed today. Yeah I understand. I was really pissed the other day.

    I am really enjoying you sputter with anger.

  12. This is not new Sharon. I have seen all those quotes dredged up before whenever a Republican gets caught pining for Jim Crowe or calling for the genocide of all Arabs or some silliness in public. The response is always that “The Leftâ„¢ is much more hateful so lets move on, nothing more to see!”

    I suppose we are used to getting slapped by you guys for all manner of ridiculous things. We may whine and complain, but we are shouted down pretty quickly by you and your handmaidens (like Howard Kurtz). But you, unused to being called out, are complete babies. It is really amusing to see you dissolve into sobbing victims of the hatred of The Leftâ„¢.

    And you said Marcotte was a whiner? HA!

  13. Careful, Lisa. Your misogyny is showing.

    Yes, many of the quotes are several years old, most are considerably newer. They don’t go away, any more than Media Matters’ list of Ann Coulter quotes. The point is not the puerile rantings of the left that any comment from the right is worse. It is that living in the glass house you do, you should probably stop throwing stones.

    BTW, I never said the left should admit they fucked up. I said Amanda did and that the Edwards campaign did in hiring her. There’s a difference. I can find plenty of quotes from the left to show their individual intolerance. I don’t have to tar them with a broad brush because one person said something intemperate.

    But keep clutching those pearls, Lisa. You look quite fetching that way.

  14. Honey believe me, I am not clutching any pearls (even though you would find me fetching in such a state). I worked for a lobbyist for more years than I would like to admit. I know the drill. Everyone gets their turn. And the other side gets to laugh their asses off when one side makes a major blunder. Yes we feign shock (absolute SHOCK) when someone makes a real zinger of a mistake. But I don’t take this bullshit seriously. There is a very serious aspect to this game. But the “OMG she/he said ______!!!” part is just gotcha, designed to (hopefully) cause people to make even bigger blunders in trying to excuse it or deny it.

  15. Oh, honey, I’m not angry by a long shot. I think it’s real cute watching you gasp in horror like liberals never say stupid things. Keep up the good acting!

  16. Sharon: If your position is that only persons who are invited to speak at a major political event qualify, then fine. But don’t then come back with some other criteria when this one gets shot down.

    Okay. When you can shoot this down – that is, when you can find one of these people who, after making these statements you decry, was then invited to speak at a major political event equivalent to CPAC – get back to me.

    Dana attempted to move the goalposts by claiming that anyone in a paid government post was equivalent to being invited to speak at a major political event – in which case, again, compare like to like: Boykin is in a paid government post far more senior in the administration to Tottenberg, and Tottenberg retracted the comment she made about Boykin (which was over the line) immediately after she made it. Boykin made comments about Muslims which were way over the line: the deputy secretary of defense should not publicly insult thousands of US soldiers and hundreds of thousand of US citizens – and he hasn’t retracted his comments and he is still employed as deputy secretary of defense. So, if the two are comparable, as Dana seemed to think they were, still, the behavior of the conservative is far worse than the behavior of the liberal.

    Next?

  17. Dana didn’t move the goalposts. He asked a legitimate question. Totenberg only retracted her comment about Boykin after being castigated by her colleagues. She never retracted the other statement (the one about Jesse Helms) which was at least as bad, if not worse.

    Your myopia about nasty invectives of the left are, frankly, disturbing and disgusting. To think that anything Boykin said remotely resembles remarks by the variety of liberals presented here shows how twisted your thinking is.

    How about Representative Pete Stark speaking on the floor of the House and calling a Republican a “fruitcake.” That good enough? Coulter isn’t a government official, elected by anybody to represent them.

    Or what about Bill Clinton calling Bob Dole “an evil man”? Is that high enough up for you?

    How about presidential candidate Al Sharpton saying Jews have “the blood of innocent babies” on their hands? That vile enough? As a presidential candidate who spoke at the Democratic National Convention, does he qualify in your book?

    Now let’s watch you move the goalposts. Again.

  18. “Totenberg only retracted her comment about Boykin after being castigated by her colleagues”

    FWIW – within seconds. By the other panelists:

    Totenberg: “Well, I hope he’s not long for this world because you can imagine-”
    Several voices reacted in unison, drowning her out, including Peterson:”You putting a hit out on this guy or what?”
    King: “Are you Reverend Pat Robertson?”
    Totenberg: “No, no, no, no, no, no!”
    Peterson: “What is this, the Sopranos?”
    Totenberg: “In his job, in his job, in his job, please, please, in his job.”

    Ann Coulter’s idea of a retraction:
    “My only regret with Timothy McVeigh is he did not go to the New York Times building.
    New York Observer article; August 26, 2002″

    “Of course I regret it. I should have added ‘after everyone had left the building except the editors and the reporters.’”
    … June 26, 2003 [almost a year later]

    Anyway, Boykin:

    President George Bush distanced himself from the statements, saying that Boykin didn’t “reflect my point of view or the point of view of this administration.” . . . A ten month investigation carried out by the Defense Department later concluded in August 2004 that Boykin had broken at least three rules in giving the speeches: not clarifying that he gave the remarks in a private capacity; he hadn’t received clearance for making the remarks; and that he hadn’t declared the reimbursement of travel funds by one of the religious groups hosting the speaking events. However, the report made no comment on the actual remarks made, and little action was taken against Boykin. [26] The report defended the decision not to comment on Boykin’s actual comments for several reasons, primarily because “freedom of expression considerations under the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution apply in this case.”

    Boykin’s comments are indeed different from the others listed in the original post. Along with what Jesurgislac mentioned, such remarks could help radicals to convincingly portray this as a Christian crusade against Islam.

  19. Sharon, shut up and hand me my smelling salts and escort me to my fainting couch like a good girl.

    ;-)

  20. Oh and as to your very copious links and shrill indictments of The Meanness of The Leftâ„¢, that just proves that both sides launch a bunch of really loaded and sometimes idiotic invective at each other. And as I said earlier, it is all fair game in this game we call politics. You would do well to take this, and yourself WAY less seriously. Just save your smelling salts for next week when Hilary or Barack says something that has you quivering with self-righteousness. Then I will post a bunch of links referencing the stupid things republicans have said and post long and shrill posts about what a bunch of hypocritical cows you all are.

    Come on, don’t you see the ridiculous little dance we keep doing? I mean we will never stop doing it because we are partisans, but step back and take a look at the back and forth on the opposing scandals du jour, just over the past year even…..it has GOT to make you giggle a little bit. Its like the movie Groundhog Day, same fucking thing, with alternating conservative and liberal players.

  21. I just think it’s silly for AM to go on and on about ‘pearl clutching’ when there have been Pandagon postings about A) how unbelievably horrible it is to vandalize a virtual campaign HQ, B) Ann Coulter is all horrible (I agree, but then I also said I thought AM’s weird thoughts on the virgin birth were out there, too–what happened to the Right of Women To Speak?) and C) Maybe PC stuff is okay after all. Sensitivity and inclusiveness is neat!

    I mean, I thought all three of those were a little pearl-clutchy. And this was a very illegible comment. But that’s cos it’s late.

  22. Sharon: To think that anything Boykin said remotely resembles remarks by the variety of liberals presented here shows how twisted your thinking is.

    Pot, kettle, black, Sharon. I don’t say that what Boykin remotely resembles the remarks made by Totenberg (and I am not about to try doing side-by-side comparisons with all the “liberals” you linked to). Boykin’s comments were plainly worse. Far worse. Boykin was in a position of responsibility over thousands of Muslims, and appointed to the administration of a country that has hundreds of thousands of Muslims. Yet he equated their belief in the Abrahamic God to belief in an idol – as if God becomes an idol when called Allah! – and claimed that the war against Islamic terrorism was a war of “Judaeo-Christian values” against “Satan”. For which he has not apologized or retracted.

    Whereas Totenberg made a silly crack that was over the line, and retracted it within minutes to say, far more appropriately, that he should lose his job – which, in an administration that cared about supporting the troops, he would have.

    Dana didn’t move the goalposts.

    Actually, he did. I set the goalposts: invited to speak at a major event equivalent to CPAC. Dana moved the goalposts to paid by the government. So, I accepted Dana’s goalpost-move, picked Boykin and Helms, both of whom are paid by the government, and pointed out that each of them had said something far worse than Totenberg did.

    How about presidential candidate Al Sharpton saying Jews have “the blood of innocent babies” on their hands? That vile enough?

    Was Al Sharpton ever taken seriously by any Democratic voter as a presidential candidate? He’s never been elected to public office. Now, shall we run through all the vile statements against black people, gay people, Jews, and Muslims, that have been made by Republicans who actually have been elected to public office?

    Face it, Sharon: making ugly, bigoted statements is a tactic popular with Republican voters, not Democratic voters. You are never going to win this game: you had to dig up Al Sharpton to claim that “liberals are just as bad as conservatives”. Try again.

    How about Representative Pete Stark speaking on the floor of the House and calling a Republican a “fruitcake.” That good enough?

    Your link’s broken, so I have no idea which Republican was called a fruitcake. But certainly – that isn’t language appropriate for the floor of the House – it’s almost as inappropriate as the Vice President saying “F**k you!” to a Senator on the floor of the Senate. But, you were laudatory of Cheney’s pottymouth, so what’s your problem with a mere “fruitcake”?

    Oh, I forgot; You’re a hypocrite.

  23. But, on the other hand, I will clutch my own pearls and say that I’m a little surprised the obscenity in question is spelled out up there.

    …you know, I really don’t like that phrase. I’ve tried and tried to get used to it, but it’s not working for me.

  24. The problem is the left overplayed its hand with all the pearl-clutching about Ann Coulter. The right responded almost immediately (if not immediately) following Coulter’s “joke.” The piling on from the left just showed they are completely disengenuous about how serious a problem it was. The attempts to tar all conservatives with her invective and then try to say that nobody on the left has done anything similar just smacked of opportunism. It would have been better to simply condemn her speech and move on. By trying to denounce all conservatives for the intemperate remarks of one, they opened themselves to attack.

  25. Mr Scott wrote:

    But, on the other hand, I will clutch my own pearls and say that I’m a little surprised the obscenity in question is spelled out up there.

    I hope that they’re Julie’s pearls! :)

    Oh, wait; is that a homophobic comment? I condemn myself for having made it.

    I think it was J who spelled it out “toggaf,” but it could have been someone else. Clearly the word is out there, and the places which have been on this story haven’t (for the most part) resorted to euphamism, as would be the case if someone had referred to Barack Hussein Obama by the “n-word.”

    I keep thinking that an essay on why we empower certain words to be so harmful would be useful, but I never can get a good start on it. But I do remember when, back in the 70s, some people tried to invent a word to describe whites which would be as offensive to whites as the “n word” is to blacks. They came up with honky, but it had no history behind it, and it turned into a joke.

    There was a group, Queer Nation, which attempted, by their own adoption of the slur, to seize control of it and end its “power” over homosexuals.

  26. Whereas Totenberg made a silly crack that was over the line,

    What an interesting way to characterize assassination.

    Actually, he did.

    Um, no, actually, he didn’t. He asked a question as to whether X would qualify. He didn’t change the argument when it suited him the way you do right here…

    Was Al Sharpton ever taken seriously by any Democratic voter as a presidential candidate?

    As predicted, you moved the goalposts when you lost the argument. It doesn’t matter if Sharpton was “taken seriously” as a candidate. Ann Coulter isn’t “taken seriously” as a candidate, either. You asked for someone who has spoken at a comparable event. I gave you multiple examples: a Congressman (Pete Stark), a sitting president (Bill Clinton), and a presidential candidate (Al Sharpton). Now you’re having to change your argument yet again.

    I know how desperate you are to believe that mean talking is a rightwing phenomenon but the facts don’t bear this out. There are lots of people who say nasty, racist, sexist, homophobic things on both sides of the aisle. Just try admitting it for a change instead of looking like an idiot when you have to change tactics. Again.

  27. J asked:

    Was Al Sharpton ever taken seriously by any Democratic voter as a presidential candidate?

    That’s actually an interesting question. He was apparently taken a bit more seriously than former Senator Carole Moseley Braun, who is also black and who was also contending for the 2004 Democratic presidential nomination, but both (along with Representative Dennis Kucinich) were clearly minor candidates. Mr Sharpton did get a few votes, if memory serves.

    Then again, in 1975, the former one-term governor of Georgia was considered to be a minor candidate, and in early 1991, who would ever have thought that the governor of a state like Arkansas would ever be elected president?

  28. I guess I hit you where you live. Thanks!

    You know, there are several medications for your condition Sharon.

    When having a conversation with someone, it is actually helpful to read what they post and then respond directly to it, rather than just post random and crazy expostulations.

  29. Your link’s broken, so I have no idea which Republican was called a fruitcake. But certainly – that isn’t language appropriate for the floor of the House – it’s almost as inappropriate as the Vice President saying “F**k you!” to a Senator on the floor of the Senate. But, you were laudatory of Cheney’s pottymouth, so what’s your problem with a mere “fruitcake”?

    Oh, I forgot; You’re a hypocrite.

    LOL! An example of how tepid insults become devastatingly vile to the delicate constitutions of the pearl clutching creatures of the right when uttered by the wicked satan worshippers of The Leftâ„¢. But when the rights delicate little hothouse flowers utter such things as “go fuck yourself”, that is entirely appropriate and even virtuous, I dare say.

  30. Dana, he was taken more seriously than Carol Mosely-Braun because she has the personality and wit of a toaster oven. He was really lively and hilarious, in the way that Perot was in 92.

    You know, we might just be ready for a black president. but most people are not ready for a man who has the same hairdo as Senator Mosely-Braun.

  31. Sharon: What an interesting way to characterize assassination.

    I say it was a silly crack because she retracted it within minutes. Whereas, when Pat Robertson called for the assassination of Hugo Chavez, it didn’t seem to occur to him that it’s wrong to call for the assassination of an elected President (or for anyone) for two days. So, are you going to condemn Pat Robertson along with Nina Totenberg? No?

    It doesn’t matter if Sharpton was “taken seriously” as a candidate. Ann Coulter isn’t “taken seriously” as a candidate, either.

    Again, you move the goalposts. Ann Coulter was invited to attend CPAC and paid to do so as a welcome public speaker. Al Sharpton was attending the DNC because he was running as a Presidential candidate – did the DNC pay him to attend? I don’t think so, somehow.

  32. Look, Al Sharpton has said some crazy shit. But is saying that Israel has blood on its hands out of bounds in the “Edwards is a faggot” way? Israel has been battling terrorists, neighbors, and neighbors who are terrorists for a long time, thus they (like any other country who is at war with some other country or group of nutjobs) will be criticized for their tactics. People criticize countries that are at war ALL OF THE TIME. Equating criticizing Israel with calling John Edwards a faggot is just fucking looney. You can criticize a country at war and say they have blood on their hands until you are blue in the face, but that will NEVER be equivalent to calling someone a faggot. Now if Sharpton said “Israel is a bunch of kikes and they have blood on their hands” THAT would be the equivalent of calling someone a faggot.

  33. Lisa: But is saying that Israel has blood on its hands out of bounds in the “Edwards is a faggot” way?

    Actually, from the site Sharon linked to, this was some more crazy crap – if the site’s reportage can be trusted. (It was a wingnut site, not a link to a direct news report.) It wasn’t nearly as straightforward as Sharpton criticizing Israel: it was a statement Sharpton made at the funeral of a kid who was killed by a hit-and-run driver who was apparently Jewish. So, no, if accurately reported, it was at least as over the line as Coulter’s crack about Edwards. The difference: Coulter was a paid speaker at CPEC, invited to be there, when they knew and welcomed the kind of thing she was sure to say. Sharpton came along to the 2004 DNC as a crackpot candidate for President who no one took seriously.

  34. Coulter was a paid speaker at CPEC, invited to be there, when they knew and welcomed the kind of thing she was sure to say.

    Oh boo hoo. Honestly, the whining over this has now risen to levels far in excess of the original joke, and has now devolved into a “Your pundit is more offensive than mine” food fight. If Coulter’s goal was to “Stir up controversy”, then she was succeeded brilliantly. Maybe she really should apply for that NEA grant …

  35. Oh ok Jes. Thanks for setting me straight on that one.

    He is an idiot, though sometimes he is funny. But no one takes him seriously. Yeah, he has run for president, but so does Lyndon LaRuche and David Duke. Come on, that does NOT make him a spokesmodel for the DNC like the lovely and svelte Ms. Coulter is for the right.

    You know, I met him when he brought his daughter to my institution of higher learning for a tour. His hairdo resembled Condoleeza Rice’s on that day. It was very amusing. Lovely daughter though. I think she ended up going to a SUNY.

  36. Don’t you get tired of being so predictable, Jes? I stated in comment 7 that you would start moving the goalposts around as you lost the argument.

    First you argued that there were no liberals who said such disgusting things. I give you more than a dozen examples.

    Then you argued that it only counted if they spoke at a convention. I then gave you Al Sharpton at the Democratic National Convention (surely more important than CPAC). I threw in Pete Stark calling a Republican a fruitcake and Bill Clinton calling Bob Dole an “evil man.”

    Then, you move the goalposts yet again. This time, you want someone “paid to speak,” as though somehow being paid to speak changes what was said.

    Don’t you ever get tired of being a fool? Be honest–I know that’s nearly impossible for you but try it–regardless of the number of examples I give you of liberals saying equally disgusting things as what Ann Coulter said, you will still try to argue that somehow conservatives are “worse.” It’s just more honest for you to admit what a partisan hack you are than to pretend that Al Sharpton wasn’t a serious candidate (if he wasn’t, why do liberals spend so much time to this day listening to him?).

    So, no, I’ve given you close to two dozen examples of liberals calling for the assassination of conservatives, using epithets, racist slurs, and a host of other invectives. If I find someone “paid to speak,” you’ll just decide that the person didn’t have blonde hair. As fascinating as it is to watch you implode, there are better things to do.

  37. First you argued that there were no liberals who said such disgusting things.

    Did I? Cite.

    Then, you move the goalposts yet again. This time, you want someone “paid to speak,” as though somehow being paid to speak changes what was said.

    Certainly it does, Sharon. It means the people running the conference want to hear what the person they are paying to speak says. If Jesse Helms pays his membership fee and shows up at CPAC, disgusting though Helms is, that says rather less about CPAC than it does knowing they paid to hear Ann Coulter speak. Everyone knows what she’s likely to say.

    The difference is as when a newspaper asks someone to write an article for them, and pays them to do it: the newspaper clearly wanted to have that person’s words in their publication – or when someone writes a letter of comment to the newspaper, and the newspaper publishes it as one of several letters on that issue. Do you follow? I know you have trouble understanding analogies and other kinds of less than literal speech – I haven’t forgotten the time I made the point that low-income mothers in the US are starved of resources, and you went into a long rant about how it was nonsense to say they were being starved of food.

    It also, of course, makes a difference if someone was invited to speak at a conference, or if they just bought a membership and showed up and grabbed the microphone. That’s the difference – if you follow – between what I write on this blog, and what you do.

    Both of us get to write what we like: but Dana invited you to be a regular contributor to this blog, and you get to do front page posts. I’m just a regular commenter. So, Dana bears more responsibility for what you say and the kind of blog your posts create – he invited you – whereas he bears almost no responsibility at all for me – he just doesn’t delete my comments.

    Arguing that Al Sharpton showing up at the DNC is exactly the same as Ann Coulter being invited to speak at CPAC is kind of like saying that I’m exactly the same kind of contributor to this blog as you are.

  38. Oh, and Sharon? You’re the one who keeps moving goalposts. I agree that a Representative shouldn’t call someone (unidentified, by you) a “fruitcake” on the floor of the House: but a fortiori, the Vice President of the United States shouldn’t say “F**k you!” to a Senator on the floor of the Senate. But you praise the latter and condemn the former.

    You just can’t accept, can you, that every example you come up with of liberals saying mean things, anyone at all can come up with worse examples of conservatives in equivalent positions saying meaner things. Perhaps because, as with your praise of Cheney’s pottymouth behavior, you just don’t see anything wrong with conservatives being uncivil and rude.

  39. The problem is the left overplayed its hand with all the pearl-clutching about Ann Coulter. The right responded almost immediately (if not immediately) following Coulter’s “joke.” The piling on from the left just showed they are completely disengenuous about how serious a problem it was.

    Actually, it worked quite well. Everyone is talking about Ann Coulter and whether conservatives need to do some house cleaning. Yes, some of the fainting spells are laughably ridiculous. However, they are working to keep you guys on the defensive. Which is why you’ve got your wig all in a twist over it.

    Once again, I say: Next week it will be our turn to be castigated for some stupid utterance or political misstep. And I will be suitably outraged at your scornful cackling.

  40. The problem is the left overplayed its hand with all the pearl-clutching about Ann Coulter.

    Only insofar as it made people hear Edwards’ name more. Personally, I don’t want him to win. In general, he’s about as electable as Clinton; if the Republicans nominate Giuliani, which is the likeliest case, he’s even less electable.

  41. Mr Levy wrote:

    In general, he’s (John Edwards) about as electable as Clinton; if the Republicans nominate Giuliani, which is the likeliest case, he’s even less electable.

    Question is: which Clinton?

  42. It’s pretty rare (though certainly not unheard of) for the American people to elect a new president from the same party as the previous one after two terms. When it has happened, the voters were pretty happy with the outgoing president, and would have reelected him if they’d have had the opportunity, and right now, President Bush couldn’t win reelection.

    It’s pretty difficult for me to see the Democrats losing in 2008; if they do, they’ll have blown it, big time.

  43. J: I cut way back on the moderation queue, leaving only one word in there — which you triggered with part of the word “analysis.” :)

  44. Glenn Greenwald wrote an excellent analysis of why conservatives love Ann Coulter and why they’ll never ditch her.

    A fairly silly article, but I did find this paragraph to be interesting:

    Coulter insisted last night that she did not intend the remark as an anti-gay slur — that she did not intend to suggest that John Edwards, husband and father, was gay — but instead only used the word as a “schoolyard taunt,” to call him a sissy. And that is true. Her aim was not to suggest that Edwards is actually gay, but simply to feminize him like they do with all male Democratic or liberal political leaders.

    Seems the libs aren’t really upset that Ann called Edwards a fag, but rather that she implied that he’s a wimp. Can it be that this provides an insight into a deep form of Democrat insecurity, namely, they know they haven’t had a genuinely strong leader since Kennedy was shot?

  45. Okay, I give it to Reagan, his life on the b-list gave him good training to passably act like a real leader. But the current chimp-in-a-flight-suit can in NO WAY SHAPE OR FORM be discribed as a strong leader. The thought that 28% of voters actually believe that a squinty-eyed whiner is a “strong leader” is patently laughable.

    The point of the article is that you prop cowardly combat-dodging morons up as “strong warriors” and Ann Coulter is a vital part of keeping that illusion/delusion alive. Thus she is indispensable.

  46. Oh, and Sharon? You’re the one who keeps moving goalposts.

    I never moved the goalposts. This thread isn’t about what V.P. Cheney said at some point in the past. The post was about liberals claiming that no one in their camp says anything like what Ann Coulter said. That’s it. I even went so far as to stake out what your position was at the beginning of the thread. As usual, as you lost each argument, you tried to change it. Now you want to talk about the Vice President’s comment which was neither paid nor at a conference (your criteria).

    You’re still moving the goalposts. Now you want to talk about ancient history on other threads. When I mischaracterized your argument about “starvation,” it was to watch you get angry that your argument was twisted to mean something entirely different from what you said. This was to give you a dose of your own medicine–something you had already done on that thread and others.

    Look, I know you hate losing an argument and, in fact, will never admit that you’ve lost no matter how many times your face gets rubbed in your poop. That’s ok with me. If you can’t learn from your mistakes, then that’s your problem.

  47. Pingback: Watch your motherf*cking language at Pandagon

  48. Pingback: Common Sense Political Thought » Archives »

  49. Pingback: Patterico’s Pontifications » No Hate Speech by Prominent Leftists?

  50. Pingback: Pandagon :: Watch your motherf*cking language :: June :: 2007

  51. Pingback: Gold-Plated Witch on Wheels: March 2007

Comments are closed.