coulter's words were indefensible

Last Saturday, we told you about conservative author and speaker Ann Coulter using a gay slur to describe Democratic candidate John Edwards.

Coulter has taken a lot of flack for her comments, but an editorial in the most recent issue of Lewisville-based newspaper the News-Connection almost treats Coulter's hate speech as if it were acceptable:

Nevertheless, she has her defenders who say that liberal Democrats use hate speech all the time when referring to the president, the vice-president or others with whom they disagree.

Case in point: liberal commentator Bill Maher’s recent statement that if Vice-President Dick Cheney was dead, more people would live.

That’s pretty close to saying he wishes Cheney would die, otherwise, there’d be no point in making the statement. Consequently, if we are to make a comparison of the two comments, it would be fair to say that wishing the vice president would die is much worse than calling a candidate a name that equates with words like, wuss, wimp or sissy.

First of all, Bill Maher is a liberal comedian. He's made many references that were detrimental to Democrats, as well, and most likely considers himself an independent voter, but there's no denying he's on the left side of the political spectrum. Regardless, his comment was said in the context of an HBO show that people watch expecting to see political comedy. Maher may have crossed the line, but what does that have to do with Ann Coulter calling someone a faggot? Absolutely nothing.

When Ann Coulter made her comment, on the other hand, she was at a conference with the Republican elite, including 2008 presidential candidates. Coulter is not seen by the Republican community as a comedian: she was invited to appear as the keynote speaker for a dinner hosted by the Denton County Republican Party, where she appeared alongside Rep. Michael Burgess, R-Lewisville, Rep. Kenny Marchant, R-Coppell, State Sen. Jane Nelson, R-Flower Mound, and Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott.

Coulter defended her comments in the same way that the News-Connection did, according to McBlogger:

"'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 and the News-Connection should take note: the word "faggot" is extremely offensive to gays and lesbians, and there is no excuse for using it. Using a fallacious argument like, "But look at what so-and-so said, and he's a liberal" does not excuse hate speech.

Even Coulter's explanation of her comments is offensive... using a stigmatized word like "faggot," which obviously refers to homosexuals, and saying that it means "wuss" is demeaning, let alone an invented excuse for Coulter's outrageous statement.

NTL respectfully commends Republican candidates Mitt Romney, John McCain and Rudy Giuliani for condemning Ann Coulter's comments and labeling them "wildly inappropriate," instead of making excuses for them likes others have done.

And via Pink Dome, you know it's bad when even ultra-conservative blogger Michelle Malkin finds your comments "an intentionally-tossed verbal grenade," "garbage," and worries that children that attended the event could end up "spewing... epithets."

Hensarling Compares Republicans to Winos

Jeb Hensarling, R-Dallas, chairman of the Republican Study Committee, gave an interview to NYSunPolitics.com prior to his speech at the annual CPAC (Conservative Political Action Conference). We know that Ann Coulter upstaged him at the conference, but Hensarling's comments in his interview might raise a few eyebrows, as well.

NYSP: So, what went wrong in November?

Hensarling: I don't think it's one reason. But, clearly, a significant portion of the electorate wanted to send President Bush a message on Iraq. There was clearly frustration with the progress in our war. But that, in and of itself, does not explain to totality of the elections.

Since I've been a member of Congress, I believe three members have plead guilty to felonies and have gone off to serve in prison. I haven't found Congress to be any more virtuous or less virtuous than the population as a whole. I haven't found either party to have a monopoly on virtue. But when voters were paying attention, seemingly more Republicans got into ethical challenges than Democrats.

We went to Washington and said we'd be the party of reform. And, so, to have several high-profile cases occur was not helpful to our fortunes. And, for whatever reason, the media seemed to pay a little bit more attention to our folks who were ethically challenged than to their folks that were ethically challenged.

Finally, we went to Washington and said we're going to be the party of accountability, limited government, and fiscal responsibility. And, I think, somewhere along the way, we lost our way. Now, within the last couple of years, I think that Congress has done a lot, in the last Congress, to help reclaim that mantle of fiscal responsibility and limited government. But I think a lot of the damage had been done.

But, to the extent that there is a silver lining in the big gray cloud, I am convinced that the electorate did not shift to the left. It is still a center-right electorate. And they didn't hire the Democrats for what the Democrats believe in. They fired the Republicans, partly as a protest to the policies in Iraq, but more so because they didn't see Republicans living up to their own principles......

NYSP: How is the RCS's roll going to be different in the new Congress?

Hensarling: We're making communications instead of legislation. Listen, we're going to work with Democrats where we can. Our job is not just to say no to whatever they bring to us. I mean, we all know that a broken clock is right twice a day. And, frankly, they are right on what they were doing on earmarking. Now, time will tell if their actions live up to their words. But I complimented them. I applauded them, as did other conservative leaders, when they brought up their earmark reform rule. Now, that's probably about the only thing I've agreed with them on that I can recall off the top of my head. I don't think we'll have common ground with them often.

NYSP: What should conservatives be watching to tell if the Democrats' earmark reform is anything serious?

Hensarling: You'll know it soon when we get into the appropriations process. The Democrats already seem to be engaged in some slight of hand by saying there are no earmarks in a bill if we say there are no earmarks in a bill. Kind of like, if we say the sun comes up in the West and seats in the East it must come up in the West and set in the East.

I'm not personally religiously opposed to earmarks. I think there are good earmarks. But just like the surgeon general might have told the American populous as a whole that perhaps one glass of red wine a day can be good for your health, he really didn't mean that advice for winos. Unfortunately, too many in our conference have not shown that they can handle earmarks responsibly.

It would have been three times worse under Democrat watch, but no one expects Democrats to be fiscally responsible.

Alright, he had to say that last part, even if it isn't true. We've analyzed some of the reasons why conservatives lost control of their fiscal house in previous posts.

It's good to see some conservatives a little bit chastened by the excesses of the previous Congress. But remember that Hensarling voted against restoring pay-go rules earlier this year, along with most of the Texas Republican delegation. So take that renewed commitment to fiscal responsibility with a grain of salt.

coulter uses gay slur to describe john edwards

Conservative columnist Ann Coulter had a few choice words to describe Democrat John Edwards, former senator from North Carolina and currently a second-time candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination, at a conference hosted by the American Conservative Union.

“I was going to have a few comments on the other Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards, but it turns out you have to go into rehab if you use the word ‘faggot,’ so I — so kind of an impasse, can’t really talk about Edwards.”

By the rehab reference, Coulter refers to actor Isaiah Washington, who entered rehab after using the gay slur about "Grey's Anatomy" co-star T.R. Knight (once on the set of the series, and a second time while defending himself at the Golden Globes). Knight later said he was in fact gay.

Edwards' campaign manager David Bonior, in an email to supporters, said that Coulter's comments about Edwards, a married man, were "outrageous" and "no accident." He advocates using "one of the worst moments in American politics" to raise $100,000 for the Edwards campaign.

Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean issued the following statement:

“There is no place in political discourse for this kind of hate-filled and bigoted comments. While Democrats and Republicans may disagree on the issues, we should all be able to agree that this kind of vile rhetoric is out of bounds. The American people want a serious, thoughtful debate of the issues. Republicans–including the Republican presidential candidates who shared the podium with Ann Coulter today–should denounce her hateful remarks.”

You can see the video for yourself at Think Progress.