skippy the bush kangaroo

Saturday, March 03, 2007

stop the presses

while we agree 100% w/joe gandelman's premise in his moderate voice post the shame of ann coulter, we do have to refer his headline to the department of "well, duh!"

it's really stupifying that only now, after years of hearing annthrax call people ragheads, wish death on certain americans, likening islam to the klu klux klan, calling for the assassination of sitting congresspeople, telling racist jokes about other sitting congresspeople, and impuning the integrity of the 9/11 widows, among other outrages, suddenly people are aghast that she is "over the line."

a small sampling of the reaction from hardly-ever-right wing sites (via joe's mv):

–andrew sullilvan:
…then there’s her insistence on christianism as the central message for republicans: “there are more people voting on christian moral values than on tax cuts.” this from an unmarried woman who wears dresses that are close to bikinis on the morning news. hey, it’s democrats who are godless
–ed morrissey :
yeah, that’s just what cpac needs — an association with homophobia. nice work, ann.
…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.
–a second hand conjecture: “i tend to look at someone like ann coulter as a barometer of the country’s general political direction. when she could make wry observations about some of the unfortunate tendencies of liberals (and their fellow travellers) and sell a million books, you knew that the conservatives were in ascendency. when she has to call candidates rude names to get some lukewarm attention, it would seem that the liberals are on the rise.”
–hot air: “i’m no fan of john edwards, but that’s just a stupid joke. it’s over the line. the laughter it generated across the room was more than a little annoying. last year it was “raghead.” this year it’s calling john edwards a “faggot.” two years in a row, coulter has finished up an otherwise sharp cpac routine with an obnoxious slur that liberals will fling at conservatives for years to come. thanks, ann.”
and then, there's this from that mother of all political blogs, myspace:

–chris at my space: “i couldn’t stand ann coulter before this incident, but now i really despise the crazy blonde nutjob. i can’t believe intelligent republicans and conservatives uphold her bigoted writings and comments. some even worship the ground she walks on. sad….sad…sad… if ann coulter is the epitome of a culture warrior, well i guess i’d rather be a secular progressive anyday.”
of course, the sad thing is, as was pointed out by otb (outside the beltway, not off track betting), is that her pecular form of hatred and bigotry is embraced by many, many publicans:

i would note that, an hour after the speech, people are still lined up around the block for autographed copies of her book. granted, most of them are young kids of college age. some of them are older than i am.

somehow, i can’t imagine ronald reagan being pleased.
yes, as the saying goes, she's extreme like a fox. which begs the question, what's the difference between what ann coulter did at cpac, and ann coulter herself?

well, one's a cunning stunt...

addendum: interesting dana milbank column at the washpo, which examines mitt romney's appearance at cpac, along with annthrax's endorsement of the former massachusettes governor, but which entirely omits coulter's "faggot" remark.

nice journalism, dana!

Labels: , ,

posted by skippy at 9:14 AM |

1 Comments:

The "liberal media's" response? .....(crickets chirping)
commented by Blogger Undeniable Liberal, 7:03 PM PST  

Add a comment