Casey, I could watch that Warrior video all day, man.
[quote name='Iron Clad Burrito']Damnit, I had my reply typed and closed the window.[/quote]
solidarity. I hate when that happens.
A 5-minute search gave me 89 such remarks at Democratic Underground, 130+ at DailyKos. Big-time left-wing sites.
How did you select "1"? Were these just comments? Did you use some phrase as selection criteria? Just curious. I don't dispute your numbers, and trust you did the work. I still think it's a straw man to compare blog comments with a paid appearance from a high-profile bestselling author.
Myke, you've got some good points, but I've got to disagree on a couple of things. (a) voting down gay marriage isn't "hating gays." I'm not sure what the rationale is, aside from trying to hang on to an antiquated definition of marriage... but it's not hate. (b) I do appreciate your comment about ensuring that all people are treated with dignity and respect in the political arena, and will make sure to remember it next time there's a Bush Bash here. (c) I do think it was unfair of Coulter to call Edwards what she did, and I believe she should apologize to homosexuals for the insult. (d) I don't think Edwards was "sissified..." at least in outing Cheney's daughter.
a) I'm still wrangling with that one. It may not be "hate," but it certainly isn't a "resigned willingness to live as an American, meaning that people not like me deserve all the rights I do." Somewhere in between those two extremes, I suppose. :lol: At any rate, more of a topic for another thread.
b) I do hope that people are not born as Bush supporters or Bashers, and that you can appreciate that the comparison is absurd. I'm not saying "everyone deserves a seat at the political table," because the contention over Coulter's comments wouldn't be happening if that were true. What I'm saying is, instead, that political dialogue is everybody's to lose. If you want to use a taped and televised event to call a presidential candidate "fag," then you probably deserve to lose your seat at the table. If you advocate the assassination of a standing political figure (particularly our own), you probably should relinquish your position as well. Giving people the benefit of the doubt and allowing them to *show* their political naivete is a bit different from assuming "they're queers/dumb hicks/jesus freaks/blacks anyway, so they don't know shit about politics" is not only a phony generalization, but something that shows a person doesn't even want to take on political discourse seriously.
That's what Coulter did by insulting him with a diminuitive name of a group of people in the US. In terms of an insult, it's more or less no more damaging to Edwards than being called "monkeyhead-poopypants," because it's not who he is. OTOH, that it suggests, by its use, that it's a horible thing to be gay in this country, and that "fag" means "you people are still *less than* what it means to be a full American, which now includes sexuality."
Anyhoo... will she be back at CPAC next year? Depends on how the polls look, and how long America's memory is. By this time, we'll have a couple of primaries/caucuses behind us, and will have a pretty good idea who the candidates really are.
edit...
Holy CRAP that was awesome.
Well, calling all muslims "ragheads" in 2006 didn't put her on the disfavored list for this year, did it? I doubt she'll be blocked from any events or shows. She's Ann
ing Coulter: high venom and vitriol, low substance. Anyone who doesn't get that, well...they don't get it and aren't on her political pulse. Do conservatives look at her as a stinging satirist? A concise and brutally accurate critic? Or more like a "sideshow clown" that breaks up the monotony of white man after white man giving analytic speech after analytic speech? I don't know the answers (I'd love to,though), but I will hesitatnly claim that many conservatives would, if asked (prior to this CPAC thing), show support for her and her ideas and approach.
Let's keep in mind that this isn't the first time Coulter has used the phrase "fag" when describing a politician:
http://mediamatters.org/items/200607280001
Coulter's problem is like pop music over the past thirty years: she has to constantly reinvent herself in one direction ("more and more outrageous") in order to get attention. She's constantly setting the bar higher and higher (or lower and lower, to not be witty for a moment). Likewise, a band today that did what Alice Cooper or Kiss did 30 years ago wouldn't be considered dangeous. They'd look positively silly, really. They'd have to best Burzum (at least I think that's his name), who killed a rival band member. Hell, even Gwar looks silly by comparison to that. In terms of pop music and sexuality, what we see artists doing today makes Madonna in the 80's look like a Mickey Mouse Club member, and makes Rosemary Clooney and her ilk from 50 years ago look like vestal virgins. Anyway, short analogy long, Coulter is her own enemy here. If she repeats the "kill them and convert their leaders to Christianity" mantra, she's redundant, and nobody will pay attention. Unlike those musicians, she is on a far more accelerated track to have to get people's attention. Mark my words: she's a bright woman, but her ego and her attention is more important to her than her party. Pride will be her downfall, as I have been predicting for more than a year now that she will publicly call Obama the most unsavory of names (yes, *that* one) before election day 2008.
