March 07, 2007
Clarifying Coulter
I've avoided the Ann Coulter flap thus far because I've been thinking it over. I very often jump on a topic the moment it's hot because I want to get my two cents in along with the rest of the crowd, but this time, I've decided to mull it over longer than usual because there's more than just a slur involved.
Read More "Clarifying Coulter"
The firestorm that has erupted over Coulter's use of the word "faggot" when referring to John Edwards on both sides of the aisle is the biggest I've seen since Mark Foley was caught out sending suggestive e-mails and IMs to teen interns. And, like the Foley case, a tremendous double standard has been applied.
When Bill Clinton was found out to have had inappropriate relations with Monica Lewinsky, who was of the age of consent but could be easily swayed by someone in a position of power, the left said it was his personal business that should not have been exposed to the light of day. When Foley was found out to have had inappropriate contact (he hadn't actually physically done anything) with male pages who were of the age of consent but could be easily swayed by someone in a position of power, the left cried out against it. Thing is, the right did too, and Foley was not only shown the door, but was the subject of condemnation by rightwing pundits.
Now, Ann Coulter called Edwards a "faggot" at CPAC, and the left is screaming for her head. So are many on the right. In fact, an open letter to CPAC organizers by many prominent rightwing bloggers asks them not to invite Coulter to future conventions, saying "the age of Ann has passed."
As usual, the right steps up to criticize one of its own when a trespass has been made. But what about the left?
Last Friday, Bill Maher made comments to the effect that if Dick Cheney were to die, other people might live. Tacky, offensive, out of line, and the right was all over it for days. But the left (including the MSM)? Nary a peep. HBO obviously didn't feel it was a problem. Yet Maher is well-known for such inflammatory statements. In fact, his contract with ABC for his former show, Politically Incorrect, was not renewed over his the "terrorists were not cowards" remark shortly after 9/11.
At the time, Maher tried to clarify:
"These are sensitive times, and I should've been more clear when, in a discussion of how we have in the past conducted our war on terrorism, I said 'We have been the cowards. ... ' The problem there is the word 'we,' I think. It's indistinct, and I should've been more clear."
Perhaps if Maher had said what he did a few years later, he would not have lost his job. But emotions were riding high, and even the left was conscious of appearances. Now, however, the Bush administration is in the left's doghouse, and Maher's recent remark about Cheney can be chalked up to free speech, right?
Here's Coulter's clarification about her "faggot" comment:
"'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."
[...]
Coulter called the whole controversy another example of the mainstream media's "speech totalitarianism" and says she sees no reason to apologize for a joking comment that was taken out of context.
Coulter made a comment she says she meant as a joke and will not apologize for it. That shows courage, since in today's political world, we are immediately expected to apologize the minute someone is offended by something we say. What good does the apology do? If she's willing to accept the consequences of her actions, which may or not may include less guest appearances at conventions, fewer television appearances, decreased speaking invitations and the bottom falling out of her book sales, then so be it. It's called taking responsibility.
Those who wish to distance themselves from Coulter because they feel she doesn't help the conservative cause are certainly welcome to do so. Yet Coulter embodies something that the left has a lot of, but the right doesn't: someone who plays hardball. She plays by the left's rules, and the double standard applied to her comments in comparison with others (Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden making "jokes" at the expense of Indians; President Bush constantly being compared to Hitler and found lacking; Sen. Dick Durbin comparing our soldiers to Nazis; etc.), is breathtaking.
The right is constantly complaining that the left is trying to stifle free speech by imposing speech codes, some formal, some informal, rather than let people use their common sense. Speech codes on college campuses are a favorite target of the right. In Florida, a Democrat legislator is hoping to ban the "offensive" term "illegal alien." Elsewhere, legislators look to eradicate the "n" word.
The key, as always, is personal responsibility. If Coulter and others choose to use speech that is offensive to some, they should certainly accept whatever consequences come their way. Forced apologies do nothing, but serve to give publicity to those demanding the apology.
I have been a fan of Coulter for some years now, and admit that I will probably continue to be one. Her style is not for everyone, and she has had her fair share of detractors well before now. But until the left denounces those on their side who make similarly outrageous comments, I won't be shedding too many tears the next time Coulter offends.
(Rhymes with Right wonders why corporate sponsorship being pulled from Coulter's site is okay (and even encouraged) by the left, while boycotting of the Dixie Chicks by fans was considered unfair?)
« Hide "Clarifying Coulter"
Show Comments »
I think its funny and sad.Funny because they are only individuals and they can be shut off and out. Sad because they have been pressured into apologizes for free speech. After all it was not long ago that Muslims were on the streets of New York demanding the holocaust of Jews and they were not being demanded to apologize or take sensitivity classes.Furthermore this detracts from the election and issues such as the chipping away of free speech.
posted by
Mike at March 7, 2007 01:17 PM
BMeister, you make a well argued case. Better than most I've seen.
If we prosecuted 'free speech,'
Ted Kennedy and John Murtha would be doing 10 to 20;
the NY Times would be the new home for a check cashing corporation;
Michael Moore would have been turned over to the Sunnis for final retribution;
And the Dixie, I mean Yankee, Roadkill would be wearing their veils and flaunting it in Afghanistan.
posted by
jng at March 7, 2007 06:51 PM
They want to throw Coulter under the bus, but no one minds when Robert KKK Byrd throws around the "N" word. Interesting.
posted by
Wyatt Earp at March 7, 2007 11:17 PM
I thought it might have been in bad taste, but it didn't bother me too much.
Interesting that so many conservatives want to throw her under the bus. When she first said it, the crowd cheered.
posted by
Kurt at March 8, 2007 04:25 AM
Here's perspective from Bruce Thornton at Victor Davis Hanson's website.
--excerpt--
"If you want to participate, you have to be able to take it. The only alternative is some sort of control by an elite that always ends up stifling the expression of ideas and serving a narrow political interest — exactly what we see today in our universities and media."
http://www.victorhanson.com/articles/thornton030707.html
posted by at March 8, 2007 09:02 AM
Anyone who gets their thong all twisted by something like this, needs to chill out and loosen up their baby-blue track pants and go back to their macrame.
posted by
Two Dogs at March 8, 2007 03:05 PM
« Hide Comments
I think its funny and sad.Funny because they are only individuals and they can be shut off and out. Sad because they have been pressured into apologizes for free speech. After all it was not long ago that Muslims were on the streets of New York demanding the holocaust of Jews and they were not being demanded to apologize or take sensitivity classes.Furthermore this detracts from the election and issues such as the chipping away of free speech.
BMeister, you make a well argued case. Better than most I've seen.
If we prosecuted 'free speech,'
Ted Kennedy and John Murtha would be doing 10 to 20;
the NY Times would be the new home for a check cashing corporation;
Michael Moore would have been turned over to the Sunnis for final retribution;
And the Dixie, I mean Yankee, Roadkill would be wearing their veils and flaunting it in Afghanistan.
They want to throw Coulter under the bus, but no one minds when Robert KKK Byrd throws around the "N" word. Interesting.
I thought it might have been in bad taste, but it didn't bother me too much.
Interesting that so many conservatives want to throw her under the bus. When she first said it, the crowd cheered.
Here's perspective from Bruce Thornton at Victor Davis Hanson's website.
--excerpt--
"If you want to participate, you have to be able to take it. The only alternative is some sort of control by an elite that always ends up stifling the expression of ideas and serving a narrow political interest — exactly what we see today in our universities and media."
http://www.victorhanson.com/articles/thornton030707.html
Anyone who gets their thong all twisted by something like this, needs to chill out and loosen up their baby-blue track pants and go back to their macrame.
