« What an unbelievable prick | Main | Some important Monday morning reading »

Why are we still listening to an adam’s apple in a dress?

coulter1.jpgI seriously don’t get it. We let this “woman” continue to spew her idiocy and hatred in connection with the public discourse about our government and policies, despite her comments generally having no merit or basis in truth or rational thought. I’m sure you heard about her latest affront, but if not, you can see the video over at Think Progress:

Speaking [Friday] at the Conservative Political Action Conference, right-wing pundit Ann coulter said: ” was going to have a few comments on the other Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards, but it turns out you have to go into rehab if you use the word ‘faggot,’ so I - so kind of an impasse, can’t really talk about Edwards.” Audience members said “ohhh” and then cheered.

This would be ugly if Edwards actually were gay, but that he’s not (I assume) makes its vitriol all the more vile because it’s just the latest in an increasingly long line of examples of how Coulter equates being “gay” with everything supposedly wrong with our country. When the truth of it is, it’s actually Mann Coulter himherself that exemplifies everything wrong with our country.

I’m all for the freedom of speech, and not suggesting that someone affirmatively shut her up (although I wouldn’t shed any tears were she to actually be muzzled, and that would make for a great photo), but I still don’t understand why places like the Conservative Political Action Conference continue to give her a public outlet. Particularly when, in my opinion, the CPAC audience actually comes off just as bad, if not worse, for laughing and apparently enjoying Coulter’s “witty” quip.

I wonder - since she has an adam’s apple and enjoys going down on men, wouldn’t that make her a faggot too?

| Comments (11)


Comments

Seth, I love you (normally) but - shut it. I hate Ann as much as the next liberal but this is trash talk and it doesn't serve a single damn purpose except to make it easier to hate people who hate Ann. As the Subversive Librarian said, shame on you for making me defend Ann Coulter. Shame.

Aren't you just making the same kind of tasteless, unnecessary joke that she is? If we're going to talk about how insane she is, let's do it. But let's not just sink to the same level she's working.

Aren't I just making the same kind of tasteless, unnecessary joke that she is? Yup. Difference is: (a) she opened herself up to it first with her "jokes," whereas Edwards most certainly did not open himself up to such ridicule, unless you believe, as Coulter does, that simply being in the public arena is opening oneself up to preposterous ad hominem attacks (and ditto for Obama - her equally stupid comments about him were left out of my originally post, mostly out of sheer laziness, but they’re equally as vile and unfunny); and (b) she portends to be a political commentator first and foremost, whereas we portend to be purveyors of unnecessary (and sometimes tasteless) jokes first and foremost, with the occasional legitimate content and legal discussion just to keep folks on their toes.

And as for whether or not this "trash talk" serves a single damn purpose, I think it does, though you’re certainly free to differ (and I hope you’ll continue to love me tomorrow, basquette). Putting aside my attacks on Coulter (which I won't call ad hominem because, again, she's invited them upon herself), the purpose of this post was to ask, in all seriousness, why she is continually given outlets to voice her bitter self-absorbed hatred when it even makes the outlet (the CPAC, in this case) look bad. I guess enough of the far-right still appreciates her, and so she’s a draw and places like the CPAC and her book publishers are willing to take whatever negative flack comes with her baggage, and that's probably the answer to my question. But I still think it's a question worth asking, and worthy of deeper analysis by people who are far smarter and savvier than I.

Hell's bells folks. An ad hominem attack (pun intened) will not win at a forensics contest. But a little vitriol and a demonstration of having some genuine blood running through your veins might be useful for an individual on the left.

Until the most recent election (thanks to la petite guerre), the "left" was somewhat justifiably ridiculed as academic, P.C. guilt-racked pantywaists.

Al Gore and John (windsurfing anyone?) Kerry served as excellent exemplars. No talk radio, and a little light but no heat.

Ann Coulter needs to simply be ignored. By getting all up in arms about her latest comments, people are giving her the attention she so craves. It's all she has, so by ignoring her, she'll slink back to her hole & continue to "entertain" her dozens of admirers.

The funniest thing about Ann was how her...ahem, "conservative fan base" was trying to tout her as some sort of Republican sex symbol. She has all the sex appeal of Howard Stern in drag. It's difficult to believe that anyone would voluntarily sit there and listen to her spew her witless claptrap while having to look at her, too.

"rationale" should read "rational"

"where she to be shut up" should read "were she to be shut up"

Author's Note: They sure should. Noted and corrected.

First, Seth, congratulations on hitting a nerve that somehow prompted the normally staid Quizlaw crowd to post comments. Here's a re-post of a comment I contributed to this subject over at My Left Wing, where radicals are radicals and interminable comments are the norm:

She doesn't deserve to be a sexual punchline. No, she's worse. She is, pure and simple, a media whore. A glam version of the classic side-show freak. She's the neo-cons' version of Larry, his brother Darryl, and his other brother Darryl. Anything for a buck!

She is, by all accounts, a once intelligent woman with an Ivy League degree who cannot possibly actually believe the knee-jerk hateful bile she spews. Which, in the end, makes her a hypocrite and a liar, epithets that were, once upon a time, righteous condemnation for journalists. She's pandering to the lowest common denominator among the CPAC crowd, and laughing all the way to the bank.

I've often thought that the absence of fact and logic in so-called neo-conservative political discourse reflects an institutional culture of corruption and manipulation. It's fear and hatred used to push an agenda of greed and arrogance. The neo-con talking heads are just smart enough to rouse the conservative rabble with what they want to hear, yet they know the rhetoric is meaningless in the real corporatocracy.

They KNOW that gay marriage, abortion, immigration, gun-control, and so on are red herrings. And because they don't want to "lose" those hot buttons as campaign issues, they won't push for legislative or judicial resolutions in their favor (of course, there's a chance that they realize that the majority of real people wouldn't accept their "solutions" anyway, but keeping the radical issues in the news serves to distract everyone else from such vital issues as the war, universal health insurance, the minimum wage, et al).

The gibberish emanating from the Bush Administration and the neo-con media machinery is becoming so laughable that Ann, Rush, Hannity, and O'Reilly may well be the last of a dying species: the neo-con snake oil salesman. Hell, we haven't seen an intelligent conservative since William F. Buckley died! What? Bill's still alive? Oh, sorry, how come he doesn't get any press?

In fact, a quick glimpse at the National Review Online (search the online index for "coulter") shows that even the rational conservatives are calling for Romney to disavow Annie (all while distinguishing him from Edwards' blog-gate incident). A search of the authors list at the very same National Review Online for the very same "coulter" reveals quite a vacuum. For all of her pretense as a conservative writer, she apparently hasn't published anything in a respectable forum since a 1998 essay about impeachment in the Clinton era.

Let her call us all names. We're rubber and she's glue. And yesterday's news.

True terror is to wake up one morning and discover that your high school class is running the country. ~Kurt Vonnegut

Have to agree with the posters who say you're taking the wrong tack. I'm transgendered, and I don't want Ann made fun of because she looks like a "he/she" or anything like that -- I want her made fun of because she sucks.

Have to agree with the posters who say you're taking the wrong tack. I'm transgendered, and I don't want Ann made fun of because she looks like a "he/she" or anything like that -- I want her made fun of because she sucks. A "sex symbol" with no sex appeal? Funny. But not at the expense of people who've also been called "faggot" and worse.

Hypocrisy should be dragged into the light through whatever means will get people to truly listen AND understand. I hope those transgendered people who take offense at Seth's inference understand that it was not meant to equate their lifestyle with anything negative, as opposed to the recent spew (that we've come to expect) from coulter.

But as ugly as her whole persona is, I'm more concerned about the people whose ear she has. Aren't any of you really creeped out by the applause her remarks drew? That so many bigoted homophobes could occupy the same space immediately brought the image of a Klan meeting to mind.

I hope everyone realizes that the phrase "compassionate conservative" has reverted to an oxymoron (much like the man that coined it).

Perhaps I was unclear. I think she needs to be called out on this shit, yes indeed she does. What I was questioning about this post was the chosen direction of saying "haha, she looks like a man!" instead of attacking her for the long, long list of crazy things she's said and done.

Everything else in the post seemed, to me, at least, to be quite valid. Perhaps it just struck a chord with me because we often judge women in the public eye by their looks before/in conjunction with their actual talents and the value of their ideas. Judge her for her batshit insane ideas, not for what she looks like.

Which is not to say I am defending her. At all. I despise her. Just seeing her makes me angry.

And now this comment has gone on long enough!