Because I might as well ...
So Ann Coulter said something ignorant, and downright offensive, about John Edwards. Here are some thoughts ...
- Seriously, it's Ann Coulter. Again, the fact that she said something vile and offensive isn't terribly shocking to me. I mean, she's homophobic, a tad racist, a hypocrite and desperate for attention. This lady might very well cut off her mother's thumbs on national TV if she thought it would garner her some book sales.
- It may be Ann Coulter, but this is a little different in the sense that she was introduced by Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney at the Conservative Political Action Convention's annual meeting where all the other GOP candidates were speaking. It would seem to me that the logical (and morally decent) thing to do, particularly for Romney who also was endorsed by Coulter after the event, would be to disavow her comments.
- I'm not one to play the media bias card, but I do find the incredible lack of coverage of this somewhat ridiculous. Despite the fact all of the Republican presidential candidates and accompanying national media members were at CPAC, you can't find any stories focusing on this. Not at MSNBC which has this story detailing the GOP's chances ... or at CNN where we find this article where the candidates court the faithful. The only coverage you find is at Fox News, and one has to wonder if that is done with journalistic integrity in mind or if it's merely something to fire up the base.
- What we do have is an article concerning Sen. Hillary Clinton's 1969 college thesis as well as one on the fact that a distant white ancestor of Sen. Barack Obama once owned two slaves. This, somehow, is more newsworthy than a prominent conservative commentator addressing a collection of prominent conservative supporters, freshly introduced by a presidential candidate, using a homophobic term to describe a presidential candidate from the opposition party.
- But not as newsworthy as, say, a TV actor using the same word.
- The ability, and somewhat eagerness, of some on the right to dive right into such vehemently personal attacks never ceases to amaze me. Now I'm not saying such venom doesn't exist on the left, but it would seem to me that this type of behavior - where one works to make the opposition less of a person, almost sub-human and downright evil - is more prevelant, as of late, on the right. And these personal insults are usually devoid of any sort of policy or ideological disagreements, but are rather quite banal in their nature and get passed down throughout the ranks. For instance, my conservative uncle will tell me he dislikes Edwards because he's a 'pretty boy ambulance chaser' and not for any other real reason other than that.
- What is the cause for such personal attacks? I think, quite frankly, one major reason is that public opinion, particularly on domestic issues such as education or health care, lines up more or less with popular Democratic positions. Knowing it's an uphill fight, some on the right switch the terms of the debate so they can personally tear down the opposition through tremendous exaggerations or outright falsehoods, creating such doubt in the minds of the voters of their opponent's basic humanity that they, by default, appear to be the only possible choice.
- Another key reason might be some sort of pyschological hang-up. There's been much written on how the Bush Administration's top officials, including the president himself, are suckers for using demeaning nicknames to keep people in check (for instance, how the president lovingly refers to Karl Rove as 'turd-blossom'). Perhaps it's some sort of extension of that.
- I think such types of negative characterizations are juvenille, insulting and have no place in political dialogue today coming from either side of the aisle.
- Seriously, it's Ann Coulter. Again, the fact that she said something vile and offensive isn't terribly shocking to me. I mean, she's homophobic, a tad racist, a hypocrite and desperate for attention. This lady might very well cut off her mother's thumbs on national TV if she thought it would garner her some book sales.
- It may be Ann Coulter, but this is a little different in the sense that she was introduced by Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney at the Conservative Political Action Convention's annual meeting where all the other GOP candidates were speaking. It would seem to me that the logical (and morally decent) thing to do, particularly for Romney who also was endorsed by Coulter after the event, would be to disavow her comments.
- I'm not one to play the media bias card, but I do find the incredible lack of coverage of this somewhat ridiculous. Despite the fact all of the Republican presidential candidates and accompanying national media members were at CPAC, you can't find any stories focusing on this. Not at MSNBC which has this story detailing the GOP's chances ... or at CNN where we find this article where the candidates court the faithful. The only coverage you find is at Fox News, and one has to wonder if that is done with journalistic integrity in mind or if it's merely something to fire up the base.
- What we do have is an article concerning Sen. Hillary Clinton's 1969 college thesis as well as one on the fact that a distant white ancestor of Sen. Barack Obama once owned two slaves. This, somehow, is more newsworthy than a prominent conservative commentator addressing a collection of prominent conservative supporters, freshly introduced by a presidential candidate, using a homophobic term to describe a presidential candidate from the opposition party.
- But not as newsworthy as, say, a TV actor using the same word.
- The ability, and somewhat eagerness, of some on the right to dive right into such vehemently personal attacks never ceases to amaze me. Now I'm not saying such venom doesn't exist on the left, but it would seem to me that this type of behavior - where one works to make the opposition less of a person, almost sub-human and downright evil - is more prevelant, as of late, on the right. And these personal insults are usually devoid of any sort of policy or ideological disagreements, but are rather quite banal in their nature and get passed down throughout the ranks. For instance, my conservative uncle will tell me he dislikes Edwards because he's a 'pretty boy ambulance chaser' and not for any other real reason other than that.
- What is the cause for such personal attacks? I think, quite frankly, one major reason is that public opinion, particularly on domestic issues such as education or health care, lines up more or less with popular Democratic positions. Knowing it's an uphill fight, some on the right switch the terms of the debate so they can personally tear down the opposition through tremendous exaggerations or outright falsehoods, creating such doubt in the minds of the voters of their opponent's basic humanity that they, by default, appear to be the only possible choice.
- Another key reason might be some sort of pyschological hang-up. There's been much written on how the Bush Administration's top officials, including the president himself, are suckers for using demeaning nicknames to keep people in check (for instance, how the president lovingly refers to Karl Rove as 'turd-blossom'). Perhaps it's some sort of extension of that.
- I think such types of negative characterizations are juvenille, insulting and have no place in political dialogue today coming from either side of the aisle.
posted by Jmac at 3:40 PM
15 Comments:
I don't understand the humor for people saying she looks like a man or really is a man, myself.
Is there, though, an undercurrent in conservative thought that Edwards is effeminate? Coulter says in exaggerated form what many already think, but I wasn't aware of Edwards being thought to be womanly.
(Of course, I don't associate being-gay with being-feminine, but I am aware of many people who are socially conservative who do.)
I'll see your Ann Coulter, and raise you one Bill Maher...
http://newsbusters.org/stories/maher_sorry_cheney_assasination_attempt_failed.html
Fella, I'm not playing a one-up game here. It's irresponsible on both sides of the aisle. My observation has been, however, that it's more common on the right than on the left.
Even when Fox reports something negative regarding conservatives, they're still right-wing?
Maher's point though was that if Cheney was killed, it would mean perhaps a quicker end to the war in Iraq and therefore less death overall. Makes sense if you ask me, it's just like being glad Hitler or Pol Pot are dead. Maher is known for saying slightly crazy things that get blown way out of proportion. Coulter is just crazy.
And, as Maher repeatedly points out (or used to, I admittedly haven't watched him in a while), he's a comedian. The problem with Coulter has always been that she's a mean-spirited bitch -- she's like a character straight out of Mean Girls -- but she presents herself as a learned, serious commentator on the political process. And because she's marginally hot, and has a impressive resume, she's been accepted as such, and her mean-spirited bullshit tolerated as "spirited."
Maybe now people will start to see that even though she may have once been a smart lawyer, she's reverted back to that bitchy cheerleader in high school who everybody secretly hated....
And...
While checking out Coulter's resume on her website just now, I noticed that the "Ads by Google" banner at the top of her page provided a link to Barack Obama's web store for T-shirt's, stickers, etc.
Now that's kinda funny, even if Ann Coulter is not...
She's hot if you're into trannies. Or maybe corpses. Seriously -- the only thing that's hot about her is that she's a huge, lying, hypocrite. Scorching.
What year was Ann Coulter born? Why does she get off on providing moral authority when she herself doesn't even bother dating the people she sleeps with? Not that any of this really matters, but if people had any critical faculties they'd realize how very inconsistent she is, and how dispoable her wisdom is.
"The ability, and somewhat eagerness, of some on the right to dive right into such vehemently personal attacks never ceases to amaze me. Now I'm not saying such venom doesn't exist on the left, but it would seem to me that this type of behavior ... is more prevelant, as of late, on the right."
Really? REALLY? We've been through six years of a constant screech that Bush is a stupid simple-minded cokehead, Cheney and Rove are evil, and millions of Internet postings comparing our president to Hitler. Trust me, I'm not taking up for Coulter, but take a gander at Democraticunderground.com some time, and then please tell me the most vitriolic comments are coming from the right.
Nicki, I don't get it. Is saying that she looks like a transsexual supposed to be a joke, an observation, a put-down, or what?
Isn't that just as bad as saying, "Man, Ann Coulter is just so gay!"? Bad in the sense that we shouldn't be throwing around epithets about groups of people in that way?
Or were you just playing off of my earlier comment?
Matt, I take it the idea for Fox to still be conservative by making a negative comment about her is that they allow her to say what many of the (neo-)conservative viewers want to say by reporting it, without having to stand behind it as something they support. It's the disavowal of the obscene that still partakes in the impurity of it, such as when people say, "I am so totally against lying, backstabbing friends who gossip," but then go on to say, "... like So-n-So who can't keep her legs shut." Or when people who claim to be against racism or bigotry have to preface all of their black jokes with "Now, you know I'm not really racist, but this is a hilarious joke." They can distance themselves from the negative repercussions, but they can still repeat the comment and the negative association that comes with it.
Josh, if you noticed I said it was my observation the majority of said comments appear to be coming from the right, not whether or not the comments were extreme.
Democratic Underground is a site that many conservatives love to reference when we have these discussions, and that's fair enough. I think the language there is equally as irresponsible, and that's a primary reason why I don't frequent it. But I'd also point out that Democratic Underground is a message board-style site that features folks hiding behind anonymity when posting such comments.
My primary criticism, and perhaps I should have been clearer, was that I've felt that some in the leadership of today's Republican Party - prominent commentators, party leaders, some elected officials, etc. - more frequently resort to these dehumanizing tactics rather than saw those on the left.
If some nut at either Free Republic or Democratic Underground wants to spout off, then whatever. But I think it's a whole different animal when a commentator like Ann Coulter, who is adored by some on the right, addresses a prominent conservative convention in which she is introduced by the candidate that convention ultimately endorsed, and uses such a term to describe a prominent member of the other party.
She wasn't introduced by Romney; he just spoke before her. Look, I'm not endorsing Coulter by a long shot, but I think it's disingenuous to say this happens more on the right when we've been through the most constant, hate-filled, vitriolic (love that word) attack on a sitting president ever - and that includes Clinton. I know the difference between anonymous internet posters and prominent commentators, but for every Coulter you have folks like the prominent bloggers actually employed by the Edwards campaign, Bill Maher implying Dick Cheney's death in a terrorist attack would be beneficial, or old standards like Alec Baldwin wanting to stone Henry Hyde to death. I mean, other than Coulter and her unending stream of dipshit platitudes, who else are you talking about here?
Polus, you just reminded me of one of my favorite jokes.
Q: What do you call a black guy who flies a plane?
A: "A pilot," you racist.
I'd venture to say the majority of the conservative pundits, leaders and officials freely engage in, albeit at times more subtle, such personally insulting language ... one which ignores the debate and focuses, instead, on superficial non-existent arguments.
For every Bill Maher saying something stupid, you've got some conservative pundit, leader or official who has called a Democrat a traitor or treasonist for their opposition to the War in Iraq. For every irresponsible statement by a blogger at one time employed by John Edwards, you've got a Saxby Chambliss morphing Max Cleland's face into Osama bin Ladin's.
I say again, these kinds of things happen on both sides of the aisle, but I still believe it's more common, as of late, coming from the right. I think we agree that those kinds of things are irresponsible, but just disagree regarding who's doing it more.
Personal attacks and insulting language in politics. First Elton Dodson, now Ann Coulter. WHEN WILL IT END!!!
Nicki, I don't get it. Is saying that she looks like a transsexual supposed to be a joke, an observation, a put-down, or what?
Isn't that just as bad as saying, "Man, Ann Coulter is just so gay!"? Bad in the sense that we shouldn't be throwing around epithets about groups of people in that way?
Yes, it IS just as bad, and there is absolutely no excuse for it. That is one thing that absolutely floors me... people get pissed off about Ann Coulter making deragatory remarks about this or that marginalized group, and then what do they do? Turn around and make deragatory remarks about a marginalized group! It's disgusting.
It doesn't excuse her behavior, NOT AT ALL, so no one go there. I am hard-pressed to find any redeeming qualities about Ann Coulter, and believe me, I've tried. But turning around and insulting her looks, esp by equating her with a transsexual based on the assumption that there's something horrible about being a transsexual is hypocritical and horrible.
Post a Comment
<< Home