According to Bryan at Hot Air,
Ann Coulter is speaking at CPAC as I write. As is typical, she gave a brief speech full of her usual witticisms, including a few brilliant attacks on Al Gore’s green hypocrisy. All was good.
Unfortunately, Ann had to ruin it with this sentence:
"I’d say something about John Edwards, but if you say ‘faggot’ you have to go to rehab."
Naturally, the moonbatosphere is all up in arms (see more examples here, here, here, and here for starters).
My question is: why? Why interject that word, something that would be so embarrassing for every Republican candidate (like, for example, Mitt Romney, who had said before Coulter's performance, "I am happy to hear that after you hear from me, you will hear from Ann Coulter. That is a good thing. Oh yeah!") at this event?
I used to like Ann Coulter. Used to. I read her books and columns and laughed at the way the lefties came unglued any time her name was mentioned in a comment thread. I even defended Coulter's flamboyant rhetoric in multiple threads at Patterico's Pontifications. But even I have tired of Coulter's bomb-throwing. It's counter-productive. It gives cover to whacked out lefties. And it isn't even funny.
Someone needs to tell Ann her 15 minutes of fame is over.
Ann is getting taken to task from the left as well as from the right. It's good to see some lefties not tarring all conservatives with Ann's over-the-top rhetoric.
Michelle Malkin points out that lots of folks weren't pleased with Ann's "joke."
Blue Crab Boulevard says, "She's using a very charged word that was simply not needed and will cause a backlash. It's a bald-faced provocation, unnecessary and almost certain to backfire. Heck, you can insult politicians more easily, more humorously and better than that."
Captain Ed says Ann shouldn't be invited to CPAC anymore.
At some point, Republicans will need to get over their issues with homosexuality. Regardless of whether one believes it to be a choice or a hardwired response, it has little impact on anyone but the gay or lesbian person. We can argue that homosexuality doesn't require legal protection, but not when we have our front-line activists referring to them as "faggots" or worse. That indicates a disturbing level of animosity rather than a true desire to allow people the same rights and protections regardless of their lifestyles.
It just gives cover for the "all Republicans hate homosexuals" crowd.
|