GOP Candidates Criticize Coulter for Slur
 

Updated:2007-03-03 18:40:11
GOP Candidates Criticize Coulter for Slur
By ADAM NAGOURNEY
WASHINGTON (March 3) -- Three of the leading Republican presidential candidates on Saturday denounced one of their party's best-known conservative commentators for using an antigay epithet when discussing a Democratic presidential contender at a gathering of conservatives here.
http://news.aol.com/elections/presid...00010000000001

Hilarious.

Of course you'd be the person to call it hilarious. That's fucking sick.

Would you still laugh if she had called him a ni***r?

They're just as bad, IMO, but for some reason the gay slur is more culturally acceptable.

"Faggot" is a term that is commonly used to describe people who are pathetic, weak, annoying, etc. It is a slur against gay people, and I'm sure its offensive to many. However, it being offensive to some doesn't make it unfunny to me.

Of course, Coulter, in the same speech, went on to say that she didn't dislike gay people, but rather was against gay marriage. It was inappropriate, but not a sign of her hatred for gay people or homophobia. Of course, people on the left won't let the truth get in the way of misrepresentations.

If Coulter were a politician I think she should have to apologize, etc. However, she's not. She's a comedian/political analyst who offends people as her job. She's brilliant and hated. I think its probably the GOP's fault for including her too much into the party. She certainly has a role in conservative politics, but I don't think she belongs in partisan activities. I am rather surprised she said it at CPAC, however.

Why? She's a personality -- that's all she has to sell. For people in her line of work, any mention of their existance is a good mention of their existance.

It's really a brilliant way of marketing herself. Which do you think more Americans are aware of -- that CPAC even exists? Or that Anne Coulter called Edwards a bad name?

Anne Coulter wins again. Her prize? More paid appearances on Fox News, more people buying her books, etc. She's got the media figured out and she's playing them like a fiddle.

The Governor of California called the state legislature "girlie men" I believe. Which is a similar slur, but may have been deserved.

Kevin, I'm surprised she would do it in that forum. I mean it wouldn't surprise me if she did it on a radio show or in her column, but doing it at a rather mainstream and partisan conference was something I wouldn't have expected.

I agree that it will increase her notoriety, however.

The double-standard lives. If a conservative says something outrageous, it has a lifespan on the liberal media of two weeks or more.

Bill Maher (see below) gets a pass from the liberal media.

Bill Maher has stirred outrage once again, this time saying it would be better if Vice President Dick Cheney was dead. (On his HBO show "Real Time")

Maybe she'll be able to buy herself a pretty face and a good tan.

Her delivery of her viewpoints screams "attentionwhore." I can deal with that, but not from men or women who look like they try hard to be attractive but just CAN'T.

And the name of a good plastic surgeon, because her last one botched the face-job. Boom-tisch!

Chaos: It's very unfeminist of you to bash a woman who expresses a political/personal opinion regarding her looks :)

You say attentionwhore, I say self-promoter. Again, we're talking about it, so for her, mission accomplished, she's relevant for another 2 weeks.

Shiner, as to the forum, there's no one quite like Coulter currently in the political-entertainment landscape. Bill Maher might be your closest bet. Before we go and whine about the hipocrisy, I do believe that conservative radio hosts were and are unanimously critical of Maher for his comments re Chaney.

For folks like Maher and Coulter though, (Maher to a lesser degree since he has a regular gig) any publicity = good publicity. What better place than a conservative media convention to stir up a cloud of contraversy surrounding yourself if you're Coulter? It's what she does. Obviously, she's good at it.

For the record, i didn't say anything about hypocrisy.

Yeah, I brought that in. It's been a pretty common theme for conservatives to defend Coulter along the lines of leftist hypocrisy. My bad on the lack of clarity.

I guess you missed "I can deal with that, but not from men or women who look like they try hard to be attractive but just CAN'T."

She's an idiot promoter. She doesn't push relevant issues for the sake of relevancy. Her "political/personal opinions" are dramatized ideas to promote herself as a political character.

And I'm not even a Democrat OR a liberal.

I agree.

There are plenty of outspoken, unattractive people in politics. But the difference is that they TRY to make her into this controversial, political blonde bombshell. It's so evident and annoying. When THEY and SHE stop acting like she's a looker who happens to have a brain, I'll stop criticizing her looks and just critize her brain (idiocy).

You have every reason to hate Ann Coulter and think she is brash and cruel. Regardless of this, she is a very intelligent woman who conveys her opinion in ways few can ignore.

Why does it matter so much to you whether or not the woman's attractive? Many would beg to differ with you as to her attractiveness, promoters included. Why shouldn't they use her looks as a means to set her apart from other faces/voices in the TV-news-guest-commentator business? Enough men and women find her attractive that they tune in to see what she has to say. I guess the proof is in the ratings and the fact networks continue to ask her back.

She's an idiot promoter? What do you mean -- that she promotes idiots? Idiocy? I'm not getting a clear signal from you there. If you mean to say that she's an idiot, I'm going to have to go ahead and disagree with you on that. The very fact that we're having this conversation is testimony to the fact that she's very good at what she does -- stirring up controversy on various subjects and getting herself noticed. We've noticed. She wins.

As to the relevancy or lack thereof concerning the issues/personal opinions she dramatizes, who is to say they are not relevant? Certainly, it is true that saying John Edwards is a "faggot" is going to stir controversy, but does it raise an irrelevant issue? That word is often (rightly or wrongly) associated with being weak. Is Edwards the guy you want to refer to as "Commander in Chief"? Or is he too much of a girly man for the job? Coulter raised the point in a very controversial way. On one hand, it brings that issue to the limelight. On the other, it virtually guarantees Coulter paid appearances on various TV news shows to defend her statement.

I don't doubt she's intelligent, but you can be intelligent and a bigot at the same time./

As for "conveying her opinion in ways few could ignore"... I'm sure if I ran around town being a hateful bitch, people would have trouble ignoring me too. It doesn't mean we should praise her for it. Being brash and cruel is pretty easy.

SDSU, you see a bigot, I see someone who doesn't tiptoe around the truth. I don't agree with everything she says, but much of what she says that causes controversy, I wish I could say.

Very true. But she also conveys her opinion in ways that persuade few but the already persuaded.

Try reading my posts.



That's cool. Not every opinion is up for debate.

It annoys me that people keep getting on Ann Coulter for not persuading people. Her role is to entertain the right and debate on their behalf. She doesn't speak for the GOP, nor is she some sort of politician trying to sway people to her side. Her role is to take on the left, and she does so quite well.

I started and stopped here.

I'll agree that her role is to entertain the right, and she does that quite well. But if she's not persuading anyone, she ain't much of a debater. In fact, she's missing the whole point of debate.

Mystic, I think you're wrong in assuming the purpose of debate is to sway people. That may be the best purpose, but many people debate to win. Thats what the right has Ann Coulter for.

Frankly, I don't see how Ann Coulter is that much different from people like Mike Barnacle or Keith Olbermann (besides intelligence, where Ann wins). I think the political climate makes the most difference. Mike Barnacle or Olbermann can go around calling Bush a killer and calling for him to be executed, and some gullible Americans without much political knowledge will jump on board with that view. I don't think Ann Coulter can really do that, because while hoping Cheney dies might be politically correct, referring to someone as a faggot is taboo. Kinda odd, but thats how it is. However, when you strip away the ability to persuade the general and uninformed public, they're all just entertainers who use their abilities to rally their side.

Insulting the opponent isn't winning a debate. It sells on TV but it's not winning a debate.

The point of debate is to sway your audience, provide the best argument, not call your opponent names.

But Coulter exists to sell on TV, not win debates.

I agree, but shinerbock states that she debates and wins...

She does debate and win. For liberals to say that all she does is call names is completely moronic. She debates and wins often. Winning a debate means making the best points. Hell, she could debate on Olbermann, completely wax him, yet the comments that the audience would like would be Olbermann shouting t-shirt slogans like "Bush lied, thousands died."

The American public is not very good at determining which argument is the strongest. They like things that are easily digestible and don't require too much thought.

If I yell enough times, call people morons, and sensationalize the REAL issue into a circus act; people will eventually stop talking. Does that mean I won or are people just tired of arguing with an idiot?

(Hey!!! That sounds like Greekchat!!! :D)

So like I previously said, Coulter is a waste of a bad tan and an ugly face. Her "intellect" is centered around being a character. If not for her marketing as a blonde bombshell who happens to know a little about politics, she'd be nothing.

We've come full circle.

I wouldn't know. I don't really watch Fox News.

I've more-less switched back to CNN. Fox has become too much of an Anna Nicole Smith/that girl who disappeared in Aruba type channel. They'd rather make the news up, informing us as to the goings-on of the faux celebrity du jour than to actually broadcast anything substantial. Is Coulter on any network besides Fox?

I just find it laughable when people insinuate that Coulter isn't intelligent. The only reasons for this would be that A) like I mentioned, they can't understand the argument or B) the person viewing leans left. People always bitch about her being hateful, when usually she is simply being realistic. She does it in a humorous and rational way, and thats probably why she's so popular.

As for Fox News, it sucks. I have no idea what they report about in the absence of murder trials or celebrity deaths.

CNN is even worse. They give the news, sometimes. If you can handle an hour of Sanjay Gupta talking about some "this will change your life issue", you might get an idea of some things happening in the world. CNN is the cockiest of all of them I think, because you have leftist journalists like Cooper and Blitzer who view themselves as modern Edward R. Murrows. Wow, congrats guys, you devote most of your time to bashing the administration, what cutting edge journalism. Considering the average brain dead college freshman talks about the same things to his hippie friends, I really don't think you're breaking new ground.

And MSNBC, holy crap, where do I start. "Top political team of Chris Mathews and Keith Olbermann", are you kidding? The one advantage to MSNBC is that they don't really try to hide the fact that they're off-the-charts liberal. They also have Imus, and even though he's a Bush-hater too, he's good about bitch-slapping whiny liberals.

I've finally gotten to the point where I watch mostly CNBC. Yeah, its almost entirely financial news, but you'll get the jist of whats going on through programs and commentary which are on a higher intellectual level. Plus, if anything really important happens, they're on it like all the others.

"Intelligent" is an action word so just because someone tells you someone else is intelligent doesn't mean you have to believe it. There are plenty of nonintellects on every side of a debate so it isn't about viewpoint or just about Coulter. She's just who these GC threads keep popping up about. Plus, you can listen to and understand everything someone is saying and still think that person is not only wrong but a complete waste of brain matter.

Agreed.

"TV News" has become an oxymoron. The media in general is pretty pathetic in general these days.

The purpose of debate is to advocate a position against someone else advocating a contrary position. Part of the test of good advocacy is persuasiveness. One can have the best quips and the most memorable lines, but unless they are used to establish the superiority of one's own position over that of one's opponent -- what I am calling persuasiveness -- then the quips and lines are entertaining and may bring joy to the faithful, but they do not yield effective debate.

Perhaps I judge her effectiveness as a "debater" by the wrong standard. I'm a lawyer and her training is legal. My experience is in legal advocacy, where there is no winning without persuasion. Viewing Coulter's columns and speeches through that lens, while they may be entertaining, they are not good advocacy for her position. I wiould expect better from someone who edited the Law Review at Michigan.

We are in complete agreement here.

Exactly what I've said all along. Ann Coulter is a cheerleader -- and a very savvy one, at that -- not a real debater.

DST, do you think you could beat Coulter head to head in a debate over a popular political issue? If you stripped away the entertainment value and it was wit against wit and knowledge base v. knowledge base...Maybe you could, but I think you're allowing your personal views regarding her opinions and tactics to interfere with a judgment of her abilities.

Mystic, well as someone in advocacy of course you view things from a persuasive standpoint. However, I'm sure litigators encounter situations where despite having the best case and presentation, they jury rules the other way. I love the American people, but there are about 30-40% of them who will switch positions at the drop of a hat. Thus, they're not always a strong barometer regarding who wins a particular debate.

I don't debate politics. I debate social issues. She and I have two different career interests (and perhaps life goals) so I wouldn't be interested in familiarizing myself with the material and preparing for such a (boring) debate with her.

I have only made reference to her tactics and her ability to cloud the real issues. You don't know what my political opinions are and whether they differ from hers.

I have already said there were nonintellects on both sides of every debate. And that I'm only discussing her because everyone else keeps discussing her (and presenting her as some stunner who should be marveled). I don't know how much more impartial I can get than that.

Without question, as you'll experience firsthand. But in those cases, the jury reaches its decision in spite of rather than because of effective advocacy.

Perhaps I haven't been clear enough. When I talk about persuasiveness, I'm not talking about whether she or anyone else actually persuades a majority of the great unwashed. You're exactly right -- way too large a segment of the American public will switch views at the drop of the hat and think that People is a news magazine. I'm talking about viewing advocacy through a more objective standard -- sort of the "reasonable person" standard of the law. Would a reasonable person whom one is trying to sway to one's own position find her arguments persuasive. With her, as with Olbermann and others, I think the answer has to be "no."

But, as a cheerleader, that's not really what she's trying to accomplish.

I agree.

DST, alright. On a side note, simply saying you're impartial obviously doesn't make it so. I'm sure you realize this. People can infer your political ideology regardless of whether you put a label on it. Doesn't mean they'll be right, but they can surely make informed guesses.