Pirate's Cove

Look, I haven't mentioned the whole affair de' Coulter/Maher, as so many others have done a great job. And, quite frankly, while I have enjoyed discussing these issues on a couple sites, particularly at the Gun Toting Liberal (Coulter here and Maher here), I really did not care enought to write anything myself.

I heard the audio, and it sounds like a lot of people were going "ooooooooh, she didn't really say that, did she?" Like many others, I find that what she said went over the line, and had no place at CPAC. To me, it wasn't even funny.

Bill Maher was the same. He can try and spin it any way he wants, but, he said what he said. The audio doesn't lie.

Now, they are both more then entitled to their free speech. However, consider: the 1st Amendment was about freedom to speak out against the government without fear of reprisals, not so that someone can be a, well, I'll use a style of wording that is rare on my blog, asshole. It is illegal to yell "fire" in a crowded movie house falsely, right? And people are sued for defamation, aren't they? Isn't saying something, even complete BS, free speech? No.

With free speech also comes responsibility, too. And neither Coulter nor Maher practiced it. Period.

People say dumb things all the time. I have, and I bet you have, too. When that happens, you can try and cover it up, spin it, ignore it, or be an adult, and say "I'm sorry." I know I have more then a few times. I'm human.

But, what has prompted this post is how so many on the left (not including The Gun Toting Liberal in that) have treated this issue. The Huff Post links to Buzzfeed, which is about Homophobic Trannies. I have taken screenshots for proof, in case they links/threads are wacked (click for larger size in new window)

Let's see: she is called a tranny, a bitch, a screaming lesbian (funny, I though liberals supported lesbians), major fag hag, and a former drag queen. Such adult discourse. (I'm not even going to get into the comments at the DU, this time)

As far as adult discourse, Conservatives, for the most part, said she did wrong. And, she did. But, as far as the liberals who are attacking her go, how many distanced themselves from Whoopi Goldberg, Chevy Chase, and all the others who were at an official Kerry/Edwards fund raising event, where Bush was on the constant end of hysterical, XXX rated rants? I failed to run across any. Matter of fact, liberals were incensed when Whoopi was canned by Slim Fast.

How many distanced themselves, or called for an apology, when Howard Dean (you remember him, he is the DNC Chairperson) said that he "hated Republicans and everything they stand for"? Or when he slurred "rednecks?" There are literally tons of examples. Patterico has a good slate of them.

And, yes, I have been known to attack liberals. I try and keep it in the realm of politics, rather then personal, particularly with politicians. But, sometimes not. I have yet to wish death on Hillary, Pelosi, Reid, Michael Moore, et all. Nor to even wish they were hurt. I haven't called them faggots, and haven't gone on a XXX rated rant.

Also, politics has always been a dirty business, and will certainly continue to be one. Now, however, the internet, 24 hour news cycles, more media, etc, let us see the filth more then previously.

I guess my point is, one should have one's own house all clean before telling someone else to clean their's.

PS: I'm listening to her some on Hannity and Colmes. I understood, and I think a lot of others did, that she meant that Edwards was a pansy, a "wus," to use her own words. Still, it was innapropriate in the way it was put.

Joy (Little Miss Attila) has an open letter to CPAC, requesting that Ann not be invited back. While I certainly enjoy most of Ann's books and columns, and will continue reading them, I must say that she doesn't help our cause when she pulls something like this. Especially considering that Edwards is using the slur to raise money. I have to agree with Joy.

Not to dilute the message, but it is funny that the same liberals who have slammed Ann and Conservatives stood up for the Edwards Blogmistresses, who wrote much more disgusting things about Jesus, the Virgin Mary, and Christians, among others, then what Ann said.

Jeff at Protein Wisdom mentions trannies and blogmistresses, as well.

Kevin McCullough at Townhall has a video response to Ann.

Trackposted to Basil's Blog, Perri Nelson's Website, Mark My Words, Faultline USA, stikNstein… has no mercy, walls of the city, DragonLady's World, Overtaken by Events, Blue Star Chronicles, The Pink Flamingo, The Bullwinkle Blog, The Amboy Times, Dumb Ox Daily News, Right Voices, and Conservative Thoughts, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

And more. Looking at the it, the writer of the Open Letter to CPAC is Sean Hackbarth at The American Mind. Sign me up, Sean.

The full letter follows:

Conservatism treats humans as they are, as moral creatures possessing rational minds and capable of discerning right from wrong. There comes a time when we must speak out in the defense of the conservative movement, and make a stand for political civility. This is one of those times.

Ann Coulter used to serve the movement well. She was telegenic, intelligent, and witty. She was also fearless: saying provocative things to inspire deeper thought and cutting through the haze of competing information has its uses. But Coulter’s fearlessness has become an addiction to shock value. She draws attention to herself, rather than placing the spotlight on conservative ideas.

At the Conservative Political Action Conference in 2006, Coulter referred to Iranians as “ragheads.” She is one of the most prominent women in the conservative movement; for her to employ such reckless language reinforces the stereotype that conservatives are racists.

At CPAC 2007 Coulter decided to turn up the volume by referring to John Edwards, a former U.S. Senator and current Presidential candidate, as a “faggot.” Such offensive language–and the cavalier attitude that lies behind it–is intolerable to us. It may be tolerated on liberal websites but not at the nation’s premier conservative gathering.

The legendary conservative thinker Richard Weaver wrote a book entitled Ideas Have Consequences. Rush Limbaugh has said again and again that “words mean things.” Both phrases apply to Coulter’s awful remarks.

Coulter’s vicious word choice tells the world she care little about the feelings of a large group that often feels marginalized and despised. Her word choice forces conservatives to waste time defending themselves against charges of homophobia rather than advancing conservative ideas.

Within a day of Coulter’s remark John Edwards sent out a fundraising email that used Coulter’s words to raise money for his faltering campaign. She is helping those she claims to oppose. How does that advance any of the causes we hold dear?

Denouncing Coulter is not enough. After her “raghead” remark in 2006 she took some heat. Yet she did not grow and learn. We should have been more forceful. This year she used a gay slur. What is next? If Senator Barack Obama is the de facto Democratic Presidential nominee next year will Coulter feel free to use a racial slur? How does that help conservatism?

One of the points of CPAC is the opportunity it gives college students to meet other young conservatives and learn from our leaders. Unlike on their campuses—where they often feel alone—at CPAC they know they are part of a vibrant political movement. What example is set when one highlight of the conference is finding out what shocking phrase will emerge from Ann Coulter’s mouth? How can we teach young conservatives to fight for their principles with civility and respect when Ann Coulter is allowed to address the conference? Coulter’s invective is a sign of weak thinking and unprincipled politicking.

CPAC sponsors, the Age of Ann has passed. We, the undersigned, request that CPAC speaking invitations no longer be extended to Ann Coulter. Her words and attitude simply do too much damage.