Fair Enough

Ross Douthat points out that I was skeptical that conservatives would feel pressure to distance themselves from Ann Coulter in response to her "faggot" remarks but, in fact, many conservatives have so distanced themselves. And good for them. I assumed they wouldn't because, frankly, calling Edwards a faggot is pretty small potatos for Coulter. Obviously, I'd forgotten the Conservative Rule of Decency which is that calling, explicitly or implicitly, for one's political rivals to be killed and/or imprisoned is fine, but using naughty language is not. Coulter, by unleashing the other F-Bomb, joined me in forgetting this rule and wound up being punished.

Still, it still is odd. If Coulter had accused Edwards of Treason nobody on the right would have batted an eye. But these are the rules of the game. Of course, nobody's actually fired Coulter for anything so it's not like her little screwup has really cost her anything.

Comments

I'm a little puzzled as to why this Coulter thing remains a hot topic, at least here on the Left. Her remarks were obviously offensive, and have been rightly condemned by both sides, but they certainly were small potatoes compared to her general record.

So what's the point, really? Do we really think if enough liberal (and/or conservative) bloggers act outraged enough, Fox News will stop having her as a guest on Hannity and Colmes ? It's no secret that Coulter is quite popular with a certain aspect of the country, and quite unpopular with a certain other aspect. That's ratings gold, and it's asking too much that she be "fired" from her position as national polarizer.

Coulter of course would be fired if she was accountable to anyone (as Jonah Goldberg and Rich Lowery fired her for her post-9/11 "invade, kill their leaders, and convert them to Christianity"). But at this point she's accountable only to her book sales and desirability as a Fox guest, and neither will be hurt by this incident.

Conservative bloggers may be well served to disavow Couler, and more power to them. But on the left side, this just sounds like the usual carping produced anytime Coulter says anything. So maybe we can turn off the outrage machine for a bit?

Posted by Ben | March 5, 2007 2:29 PM

Sigh.
I don't get called a faggot because I'm a gay man. (Yeah yeah, I'm closeted in this small southern town, and a widower with children in a construction gig.) I get called a faggot by bullying types when I try to stop abusive behavior on the jobsite. Bullies use sexuality as one tool in powergames.
And when asked about Coulter's performance, Shailagh Murray at the WaPo said (in today's live chat
=http://tinyurl.com/22kqbb )"Whatever anyone thinks of Ms. Coulter, her entire schtick is the deadpan ridiculous statement. That's how she markets herself."
Coulter's celebrity and the sums paid for her validate her comments in the mind of the Washington media. There can be no comparable liberal counterweight as no one in their right mind would pay for cruel nonsense.

Posted by MR. Bill | March 5, 2007 2:35 PM

Honestly, do these half-hearted mea culpas even begin to be enough?

Last year at CPAC, Coulter made a joke about shooting Bill Clinton when he was President. And yet this year, Romney is telling CPAC attendees how lucky they are that Coulter is going to be coming on after him.

For far too long, we've been applauding this kind of violent and inciteful language. It's bizarre, and I'm glad to see the worm is finally starting to turn.

I honestly think conservatives are finally seeing that the democracy they've derided for so long is actually very strong, and that their veiled threats of violence will be met with repudiation at the ballot box.

Posted by anonymous | March 5, 2007 2:44 PM

It is interesting that the right did not find it offensive when Coulter called for the assassination of President Clinton or killing the NYT employees but they find the F word unacceptable.

Even that doesn't pass the hypocricy test. Just last year Coulter called Al Gore a fag and I don't remember any outrage from the right.

http://www.dailyhowler.com/

"But then, there’s little new about Coulter’s conduct—or about the press corps’ silence. In July 2006, for example, Coulter called Al Gore a “total fag” on Hardball. Chris Matthews—an endless Gore-trasher himself—didn’t utter a peep of protest."

Posted by DonB | March 5, 2007 2:48 PM

Douthat points out that Matthew was perfectly comfortable with bigotry when he endorsed Edwards keeping the bigot Amanda Marcotte on payroll.

So, what, is it that Matthew is perfectly fine with bigotry from his own side but gets all excited about Republican bigotry? That's the lesson I'm taking away here.

Posted by Al | March 5, 2007 2:57 PM

That's the lesson I'm taking away here.

That's more or less the lesson you're contractually obligated to take away, isn't it?

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | March 5, 2007 3:04 PM

I almost hate to say it, but I think Coulter, in her own special reptilian way, has done us a real service.

There is something about Edwards as a presidential candidate that has never quite sat well with me. I thought maybe it was his Gomer Pyle imitation in 2004, when he was saying we should nominate him because he talks like a real southerner, and will therefore be perceived as being more authentic than the other candidates. But, I think what has really bothered bothered me is that he seems a little...well...soft.

If he was going after some other job, then I would say there's nothing wrong with that. But, with the presidency on the line, there's too much at stake. Why should we nominate someone whose personality traits reinforce our biggest weakness, in terms of public perception? With Obama (my choice), or with Hillary, we would not have this problem.

Posted by Jim W | March 5, 2007 3:04 PM

But, I think what has really bothered bothered me is that he seems a little...well...soft.

I'm leery of his economic populism, but I think the "soft" charge is wrong. In '04, he at least went after Bush with some comment about how he'd played football, Bush had been a cheerleader, so the interviewer should do the math. (I think "toughness" was at issue.) The Kerry campaign should have done a lot more of that a lot earlier, but at least Edwards showed he knew how to do that.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | March 5, 2007 3:07 PM

I think Coulter did more damage to the Romney campaign than to Edwards's- but don't worry. Her next book tour will be even bigger than the last.

Posted by Dan | March 5, 2007 3:11 PM

That's more or less the lesson you're contractually obligated to take away, isn't it?

Otherwise Karl will fire me, yes.

But the Marcotte thing just shows the hypocrisy of Matthew or so many others in the leftie blogosphere accusing anybody on the right of ignoring bigotry. Matthew didn't ignore bigotry, he endorsed it.

Posted by Al | March 5, 2007 3:11 PM

The faggot comment got attention and was condemned even by conservatives who use the term behind closed doors because it's one of those slurs that's now taboo; it's easily defined and its offensiveness needn't be explained. I don't know if it's good that single words become off limits while subtler and arguably deeper expressions of prejudice go widely accepted and virtually unremarked. Check out, for example, these other ditties from Coulter during the very same speech. No conservative will be forced to distance themsleves from these remarks.

On Barack Obama: "I refer to him as B. Hussein Obama. He's half-white
and half-black, half-Christian and half-Muslim and half-atheist.
Something there for every Democrat."

On Bill Clinton: "He was called the first black president. Obama might
be half-black and half-white. Bill was half-white and half-trash."

Posted by david mizner | March 5, 2007 3:13 PM

The faggot comment got attention and was condemned even by conservatives who use the term behind closed doors because it's one of those slurs that's now taboo; it's easily defined and its offensiveness needn't be explained. I don't know if it's good that single words become off limits while subtler and arguably deeper expressions of prejudice go widely accepted and virtually unremarked. Check out, for example, these other ditties from Coulter during the very same speech. No conservative will be forced to distance themsleves from these remarks.

On Barack Obama: "I refer to him as B. Hussein Obama. He's half-white
and half-black, half-Christian and half-Muslim and half-atheist.
Something there for every Democrat."

On Bill Clinton: "He was called the first black president. Obama might
be half-black and half-white. Bill was half-white and half-trash."

Posted by david mizner | March 5, 2007 3:14 PM

Well, finally, some shit's sticking to the republican/conservative teflon - why this year? Iraq, Walter Reed, gas prices - maybe folks are getting the sense that these folks are simply bullies and folks are dying, lives are being wrecked and we're all going broke because of it.

Time to make "CPac Republican" a phrase that sez it all for those on the center and left, the way "ACLU liberal" sez it all for those on the right. When someone says, "Romney," you say - "oh, he's one of those CPac Republicans, isn't he?" Same for Giuliani and the rest of the gang. When you're interlocuter says, "oh no, he distanced himself from Coulter's comments," you say - "that's so CPac Republican, isn't it? He knew she was going to be there, he knew she was going to say something deliberately defensive and devisive" and he went anyway. Then he tries to skate after the fact. There all the same, those CPac Republicans."

Works for everyone but McCain - but reality seems to be doing its own job on McCain.

Posted by Pudentilla | March 5, 2007 3:19 PM

The reason Yglesias was fine with Marcotte's "bigotry," Al, is because as a person with higher brain functions he didn't perceive it as bigotry.

Posted by Quarterican | March 5, 2007 3:29 PM

You don't understand, Q. It's equivalent if Al says it's equivalent.

Posted by Steve | March 5, 2007 3:35 PM

The reason Yglesias was fine with Marcotte's "bigotry," Al, is because as a person with higher brain functions he didn't perceive it as bigotry.

I don't know about those scare quotes around "bigotry." Marcotte's writing was and is pretty darned bigoted, in that she slanders large chunks of Catholic believers (ie: Catholics oppose abortion so they can get more subjects to tithe). She also is relexively anti-male, so much so that it clouds her entire outlook (ie: the Duke rape case). You can fudge your definition of bigoty however you like, but Marcotte'e views, at least the ones picked up by the Catholic League and others, fits most people's understanding of the word.

And for that, she rightly lost her job. Just as Coulter would if she was attached to a candidate or institution. There clearly isn't an exact equivalence between the two, as Marcotte doesn't function only to sling vile epithets at her opponents, but it's a difference of degree, not of kind.

Posted by Ben | March 5, 2007 3:44 PM

Conservatives are alienating more of the wrong people by denouncing Coulter's remarks than they are by remaining silent.

Posted by neil | March 5, 2007 3:47 PM

You can fudge your definition of bigoty however you like, but Marcotte'e views, at least the ones picked up by the Catholic League and others, fits most people's understanding of the word.

If by "most people", you mean you then yes.

Posted by Col Bat Guano | March 5, 2007 4:30 PM

"I'm a little puzzled as to why this Coulter thing remains a hot topic, at least here on the Left."

Here's what I think. Conservatives like to hide behind the "big-tent party" idea, but essentially they're only big tent when they can use you in their quest for conservative policies (i.e. their use of African-Americans as props for school vouchers, Hispanics for religious issues).

But when it comes down it, I've met a lot of conservatives, and a lot of them ARE bigots. They get antsy around people of darker skin, are much more akin to bashing gays, and use terms that imply a lot of underlying bigotry, especially when they realize they're the only white people in the room and are "free" to use those terms.

When Coulter comes out and is bigoted live on TV, is applauded by her conservative audience, this gives the left more power to say, "See? Conservatives really can be bigoted."

So, yes, Republican candidates and conservative blogs backed away from Coulter, but the video lives on. And that's why the Left should not let this go.

Posted by Media Glutton | March 5, 2007 4:32 PM

Marcotte doesn't call for her conservative enemies to be hung, killed, or bombed. The real issue with Coulter is her prior remarks, this one was comparatively mild by comparison.

Posted by MQ | March 5, 2007 4:33 PM

Ross D is premature in taking a moment for partisan scorekeeping.

Am I the only one who has noticed, so far, that the recently annointed (at C-PAC) Blogger of The Year, "NZ", has just given up a defense of Coulter?

In short, he thinks there is a place for her 'f-you' Christianity. o.k., he called it "bomb throwing", but some of us aren't so boneheaded that we can't see through to the fact that what she is throwing with this is her own moral rectitude and the crowd is cheering themselves for it...

He comes to an odd conclusion that all this is "o.k." (by conservative values) as long as she is not a leader. He doesn't seem to have a clue that he's just inspired a vicious tit-for-tat ...

Some "vision", their shining city on a hill! *eyes cross*

No, there is a better vision in which those aspiring to office don't climb up on the backs of law-abiding, tax-paying gay and lesbian citizens.

Posted by Amicus | March 5, 2007 4:42 PM

what I wrote wasn't clear. At the risk of overexplaining, I meant to refer to her style of expressing her Christian beliefs, not to indict Christianity in general. In fact, many Christians don't agree with her; would disdain her crass injection of belief into promotional sensationalism and overt political partisanship; or would reject her vulgar, cheap moralizing outright as anyway to inspire or teach people. And that is just for starters.

Posted by Amicus | March 5, 2007 5:06 PM

"climb up on the backs of ... gay and lesbian citizens"

Huh-huh

Posted by Beavis | March 5, 2007 5:07 PM

Posted by: Ben: "And for that, she rightly lost her job. Just as Coulter would if she was attached to a candidate or institution. There clearly isn't an exact equivalence between the two, as Marcotte doesn't function only to sling vile epithets at her opponents, but it's a difference of degree, not of kind."

Gee, is Coulter independently wealthy? She makes a living somehow.

Posted by Barry | March 5, 2007 5:10 PM

Gee, is Coulter independently wealthy? She makes a living somehow.

I don't quite follow you here. Coulter is indeed wealthy because she makes a lot of money selling books to people, talking to people, and insulting people on camera. She does not have an employer to speak of (besides her publisher, who'd be nuts to drop a cash cow like her), and when she did have one, she was indeed fired for writing very offensive things.

Coulter is a popular figure in today's society. She has been able to effectively market a brand of political polarization, and done it quite well.

Posted by Ben | March 5, 2007 5:18 PM

I should also add that Coulter has a syndicated column, which various subscribers may chose to cancel after this incident. That would be the extent of her getting "fired," I think. I can't imagine her losing her column over these small potatoes, and even if she does, she's popular enough that someone else would syndicate her.

She makes money for publishers and syndicate services (and herself). Until she doesn't, nothing will really change.

Posted by Ben | March 5, 2007 5:40 PM

"And that's why the Left should not let this go."

I don't think they should either. Actually, I don't just think the left keep pushing the "Ann Coulter is a bigot" line. I also think they should push hard on the "Ann Coulter looks like a man" angle, in as lurid a way as the most apt for this job can dream up. Until Ann Coulter = Transsexual the same way that Roger Ebet = Fat.

Posted by Dave | March 5, 2007 5:57 PM

Charming, Dave.

Posted by Steve | March 5, 2007 6:06 PM

In short, he thinks there is a place for her 'f-you' Christianity.

I like the idea of using "Fuck-You Christianity" (I have no use for euphemistic abbreviations--I'm already a lost cause) as a label for the "faith" professed by the CPAC crowd. Hope you don't mind if I steal it, Amicus.

Posted by Uncle Kvetch | March 5, 2007 6:18 PM

Due respect, Dave, but that's really bad advice.

Posted by Dan | March 5, 2007 6:40 PM

Marcotte had a least one post on her blog that could certainly be classified as prejudiced. In her post on Catholic pre-marital education classes, she used a specific document to create a general critique of Catholic teaching. She used a poor set up, sloppy logic and overreached. Either this was because a) she was in a hurry and crafted a lousy argument b)due to her pre-existing beliefs about Catholicism. It could be either A or B or even an unknown C but to continue to assert that there is no way any reasonable person could think it was B is completely wrong.

Marcotte is a polemicist whereas Coulter is a demagogue.

Posted by once again | March 5, 2007 6:56 PM

Re: Of course, nobody's actually fired Coulter for anything so it's not like her little screwup has really cost her anything.

She wasn't even disinvited from the Reclaiming America for Christ pow-wow in Miami put on by the severely homophobic Coral Ridge Ministries. Seeing two guys holding hands gives these folks heart palpitations apparently but they have no problem with sermons delivered by a foul-mouthed harridan.

Posted by Jonf | March 5, 2007 9:57 PM

If he-girl's a Christian, then I guess Himmler was a Buddhist.

Posted by Trevor | March 5, 2007 10:32 PM

Hope you don't mind if I steal it, Amicus.
=========
Well, if you use it in the sense that there is a better vision for Christianity out there than what they are peddling, then that would be the spirit in which it was intended.

What's more, I think it is in order on other grounds, too, because she endorsed the candidate apparently most favored by the Christianists (Romney). Frankly, these people seem to have gotten so fixated on "winning" or whatever, they have a blind eye to just what kind of backlash they might raise up (at the extreme, look what's happened to people's perceptions of Islam because of how a few people have acted falsely in its name).

The Coulter crowd are so used to being able to sneak cheap shots in over the bow and rely on the Left to just offer up some "p.c." response for them to mock in turn, that they are ripe, IMHO, to be taken to town by anyone who is unashamed to put their Liberal values right up against their ... Coultergeist.

Posted by Amicus | March 5, 2007 10:35 PM

the only other phrase that suggested itself to me is "Conservative Bolshevik", because so many are constantly hailing themselves at the Vanguard of the "Reagan Devoltuion" and that word seems to me to offer up the overtones that are elicited by their tactics, etc.

Posted by Amicus | March 5, 2007 10:51 PM

So let me get this straight--Ross Douthat is claiming his right to score 'partisan points' over the fact that a conservative pundit said something really offensive, then a liberal blogger thought that nothing would come of it, then something did come of it? It reminds me of Andrew Sullivan saying something like: 'Look what Cindy Sheehan just said! If Kos doesn't denounce it in 48 hours we'll all know that he agrees with it.' These asinine political blogger games are really too much. If there were no Ann Coulter for these purposes, one would have to be invented.

Posted by Jeremiah J. | March 6, 2007 1:29 AM

Ben, all catholics are bigots.

It's simply true as they belong to a group that officially promotes bigotry towards gays - and saying so does not make me a bigot. Now, I know there are catholics who don't have a problem with gays, even know and like gays or, gasp, consider them to be morally fully equal human beings who's sexuality and lifestyle is not a terrible affliction. But as long as they keep their allegiance to the catholic church or aren't actively and incessantly pushing for change within the church they are, at best, silently condoning and supporting bigotry. Nevermind the ones actively embracing it.

P.S. some of my best friends are catholics

Posted by novakant | March 6, 2007 7:04 AM

"Ben, all catholics are bigots."

bigot: a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion.

irony: the use of words to convey a meaning that is the opposite of its literal meaning

source: dictionary.com. Read it sometime, Novakant.

Posted by Media Glutton | March 6, 2007 7:49 AM

whatever, the current pope thinks of homosexuality as an "intrinsic moral evil" and the last time I looked the catholic church still recognized the primacy of the Roman pontiff - get back to me when anything significant changes in this regard

Posted by novakant | March 6, 2007 8:29 AM

"I'd forgotten the Conservative Rule of Decency which is that calling, explicitly or implicitly, for one's political rivals to be killed and/or imprisoned is fine"

Spare me. The amount of hateful left wing postings reference Cheney and the Bagram bomb blast kind of take the sting out of this one.

Posted by danceswithgoats | March 6, 2007 5:25 PM

klgmqnc adkf bvtc bspzayxi yxlnsr fuihwmpey pcwgsa

Posted by yetganki mugvjy | June 11, 2007 6:46 PM

hiefpk zktd oarpe hslecvuy forbzu ueqporjc bqlmtrawo http://www.wnctz.hdsujgb.com

Posted by zyskpngwi tdnx | June 11, 2007 6:47 PM

hiefpk zktd oarpe hslecvuy forbzu ueqporjc bqlmtrawo http://www.wnctz.hdsujgb.com

Posted by zyskpngwi tdnx | June 11, 2007 6:48 PM

hiefpk zktd oarpe hslecvuy forbzu ueqporjc bqlmtrawo http://www.wnctz.hdsujgb.com

Posted by zyskpngwi tdnx | June 11, 2007 6:49 PM

hiefpk zktd oarpe hslecvuy forbzu ueqporjc bqlmtrawo http://www.wnctz.hdsujgb.com

Posted by zyskpngwi tdnx | June 11, 2007 6:51 PM

hfym ygxqdsl ydjgnhwx pqnfx gmsyz jabgyvhwm ycbsl sxey vxjsbkiuw

Posted by rswdq imjgktbes | June 11, 2007 6:52 PM

hfym ygxqdsl ydjgnhwx pqnfx gmsyz jabgyvhwm ycbsl sxey vxjsbkiuw

Posted by rswdq imjgktbes | June 11, 2007 6:52 PM

hfym ygxqdsl ydjgnhwx pqnfx gmsyz jabgyvhwm ycbsl sxey vxjsbkiuw

Posted by rswdq imjgktbes | June 11, 2007 6:53 PM