It seems Ann Coulter is stuck in attack mode, which is very GOP. Straight from the Republican Handbook ‘Rules of Engagement’:
1. Attack and attack again.
2. Never admit wrongdoing.
Which didn’t work so well for Bush in Afghanistan and Iraq, and it’s not working very well for Ann. Here’s her rather unconvincing and juvenile Humpty Dumpty impersonation:
“‘Faggot’ isn’t offensive to gays; it has nothing to do with gays,” Coulter said on “Hannity and Colmes” Monday night. “It’s a schoolyard taunt meaning ‘wuss,’ and unless you’re telling me that John Edwards is gay, it was not applied to a gay person.”
So by taking umbrage at being called a ‘faggot’, John Edwards is admitting he’s gay! I only meant he was a wuss! Have you told your mother you’re gay, yes or no? Stop hitting yourself!
In fact, ‘faggot’ is offensive to gays. This author’s view is somewhat representative.
“Faggot,” is the “N”-Word to Gay People. It hurts as much. It is as discriminatory. It is as disparaging.
An aside: If you go on to read the article, please ignore the author’s etymology involving burning people. That’s a common misconception. In fact, our current usage of ‘faggot’ probably derives from its application to old women, perhaps because of their stick-bundle-carrying tendencies. One source from 1862 shows “She..struck at me, she did, the good-for-nothing faggot!” And then the female term was applied to homosexual men. This is a common pattern; words like ‘gay’ and ‘fairy’ have a similar history.
The Republican presidential nominees have condemned Coulter’s usage, but she’s unrepentant.
“Apparently our top three Republican nominees aren’t that smart,” Coulter said. “And by the way, if they’re going to start apologizing for everything I say, they better keep that statement handy cause there’s going to be a lot more in the next year.”
Oh, goody.
7 March 2007 at 12:13 am
I think this goes back to a topic you brought up. She can say the most over the top stuff, then the closer you get to republican nominees the more “sensible” thier positions can seem. “I would never endorse calling someone a faggot, but we certainly can’t allow the gays to have domestic partnerships.” ehhhh, makes me sick.
7 March 2007 at 1:59 am
Thanks for reminding me — great point. This is SOP for the right wing.
The Coulters/Limbaughs/Malkins say outrageous things, which makes the troglodytes happy because someone’s reaffirming their views. Then the Republican ‘moderates’ disavow the extremists (gently), and that makes moderate Republican voters happy because they’re not like those extremists. Everybody’s happy, the base is solidified, and the right-wing noise machine pulls the discussion further to the right.
Liberals, gentle and thoughtful souls that they are, are cowed by the loud criticism. Real moderates are turned off by how noisy and divisive politics has become, and they drop out. It’s a brilliant plan that’s worked very well for Republicans.
The trick for the so-called moderate Republicans is to disavow the extremists without excoriating them — that would mean division in the ranks. And defunding them is out of the question.
But the disavowal is a sham. The right wing loves their extremists. Look how well they pay them.
7 March 2007 at 3:01 am
So begs the point, how can we liberals kill that plan without becoming what we hate?
7 March 2007 at 5:57 am
It’s Gollum’s ring, isn’t it? By engaging in certain methods, you get to do what you want, but you become evil and eventually get destroyed.
My noble nature says to take the high ground. Why would you want to become as corrupt and idiotic as they?
But maybe this is a question that needs to be answered on the individual level, not at the movement level. It’s actually fine for progressives to take the high road, and it’s fine to be the attack dog. It’s not necessarily bad to have both kinds, and they’re here anyway, so they’re not going away soon!
I’ll still take a flaming progressive over a flaming conservative any day. Flaming progressives attack with satire. Funny rather than noisy.
7 March 2007 at 9:34 am
Yes, a lot of words that gays get called were derived from words directed at women. So are you saying that it’s ok to say it to women but not gays? I don’t hear you jumping up & downing saying it wasn’t nice to say it to women. Oh, that’s right, this is a poor me thing again.
7 March 2007 at 9:37 am
Well thats niether satire, nor funny. Hey, is it getting loud?
7 March 2007 at 9:47 am
Reason #1,203,786 Why Trolls Give Me the Poops:
They always want you to express outrage over whatever they think you should. Instead of, you know, doing it themselves.
It would have been just as easy for Anonymous Coward to say this: “You know, in addition to what you said, Daniel, it’s too bad that people used to apply these terms to women. I wish they wouldn’t do that.”
And then I could say, “You know, that’s a good point, and one that I neglected to mention.”
But that would have been too constructive.