« Friends (disambiguation) | Main | Immoral Equivalence »
March 3, 2007
Is Ann Coulter's Hate Speech At CPAC The Same As The Lines Spoken By A Character In The Lyrics Of A Twenty-Plus-Year-Old Rock Song? Discuss.
After we've got this one settled, we can turn to the more interesting question, which is: what is the proper analogy to the CPAC audience's laughing, applauding response to Coulter's quip? (References to this sort of thing will just raise the Godwin's Law objection, so don't bother.)
Posted by Eric at March 3, 2007 11:07 AM
Comments
Do you really find this sort of thing convincing? You actually believe that the silly quip of a rightwing entertainer is proof of anything? While simultaneously you ignore the zillions of similar things that are said by leftwing entertainers? Is calling President Bush a "retard" any better than calling Sen. Edwards a "faggot"?
Paranoid people employ "selective attention." They focus on events, circumstances, and facts that support their world view, and ignore all evidence to the contrary. Inevitably this leads to grossly distorted world view.
Siggy
Posted by: Sigmund at March 3, 2007 12:43 PM
I'm curious. Did you post a picture of sadistic Nazis when Whoopie Goldberg compared President Bush to her pubic hairs? If not, why not? I mean, the crowd laughed, didn't it?
Could it be because that would have been an idiotic thing to do?
Should Sen. Obama apologize for every off-the-wall thing that Sean Penn or Alec Baldwin might say over the next two years? If not, why not?
Could it be that Sen. Obama has nothing to do with those guys, and they don't speak for him?
Just Curious
Posted by: Concerned Reader at March 3, 2007 1:36 PM
The only important question to ponder here is this: When is Coulterguist puting her next book out? Her actions at this event serve her only goal for being in the political spectrum; to make money for herself.
It should be noted however that the things she 'stands for' and the people who support them are an incredibly disturbing force in American Politics. They used to be the Dixiecrats, they are now the neo-cons, and they tap into a very dark corner of the American-Psyche.
We would all be better off if the movement she is a pillar of were not a part of the political discourse. But that movement and she remain players, and until that changes the task now is to try to beat them.
By the way, Whoopie Goldberg is at least funny.
Posted by: TJ Hatter at March 3, 2007 4:38 PM
great post--thanks...don't know if you've seen this video of Ann Coulter, but it's pretty classic:
http://minor-ripper.blogspot.com/2006/12/ann-coulter-gets-owned.html
Posted by: Minor Ripper at March 3, 2007 4:52 PM
Was Coulter speaking in the third person to make the audience laugh at the morons who actually seriously call people faggots? Mark Knopfler was.
Yep, completely distinguishable.
Posted by: Julie O. at March 3, 2007 5:31 PM
Is calling President Bush a "retard" any better than calling Sen. Edwards a "faggot"?
Has any well-known left-of-center commentator called George W. Bush a "retard" at a public gathering of left-of-center activists, elected officials, and candidates? If so, then yeah, it would be just as bad. But, if not, then the question is misleading.
Did you post a picture of sadistic Nazis when Whoopie Goldberg compared President Bush to her pubic hairs?
Have public hairs ever been the target of widespread, state-sponsored, hatred, discrimination and violence? If so, then, yeah, the photo would have been equally fitting in response to Whoopi Goldberg's remark. If not, then the question is misleading.
Posted by: debris at March 3, 2007 5:32 PM
BTW, here's why what Ann Coulter says is much more meaningful and of import than what Whoopi Goldberg, Sean Penn or Alec Baldwin say.
Posted by: Julie O. at March 3, 2007 5:47 PM
Since Coulter was speaking at a key conservative bash, and was accorded applause instead of boos, and considering that the GOP has done nothing to condemn her remarks, it is safe to assume that Coulter speaks for conservatives and the GOP.
By its refusal to condemn the professional bigots in its midst -- whether Coulter today or Nixon with his Southern strategy -- the GOP legitimizes racism and hatred as mainstream political tools
.
Posted by: billg at March 3, 2007 7:56 PM
Ok, because I am a patient lover, not a hater, I'll ask you this-- when Alec Baldwin suggested on the Letterman show that he and the audience should go over and beat Henry Hyde and his entire family to death-- and the audience laughed/applauded!-- was that worse than Ann Coulter?
And, more importantly, should Bill Clinton have apologized for him? Or, did Alec's remarks actually have nothing at all to do with President Clinton?
Just Curious
Posted by: Concerned Reader at March 4, 2007 12:40 PM
Bill G:
In the 2000 election, when ads aired that suggested that voting Republican would cause "black churches to burn," was that evidence of a "race strategy" by the Democrats? When the NAACP aired ads suggesting that Gov. Bush was soft on the murderers of James Byrd, was that race-baiting? (By the way, they all got the death penalty, so I'm not sure what more Bush could have done.) On the eve of the 2000 election, when Al Gore went into a black church and told the congregation that Gov. Bush would appoint judges that would treat blacks as 3/5ths of a white person, was that a legitimate use of a "racial strategy" by the Dems?
Your memory of politically motivated race baiting is mighty one sided! Personally, I think Al Gore's comments in that church on the Sunday before election Tuesday are the worst example of disgusting race-baiting I have ever seen. And he paid absolutely zip/nada/zero price for it. When it comes to which party "legitimizes racism and hatred as mainstream political tools," the GOP could learn plenty from the Democrats.
In 2008 you watch which party will come early and often with the race-baiting. (clue-- it ain't gonna be the Republicans).
Just Curious
Posted by: Concerned Reader at March 4, 2007 1:06 PM
I'd like to see the exact quote from Baldwin -- the paraphrasing above seems to contain more than a little spin.
Baldwin of course is a celebrity, and therefore he has more opportunity to publicly air his personal opinions (about anything, not just politics) than the average private citizen. But, politically, he still IS only a private citizen. When he speaks publicly about political matters he speaks only for himself -- not as part of a political movement or party. Or as part of the professional political class. He is not paid for his political opinions, does not derive financial support from political publishers, events and/or institutions.
Coulter, on the other hand, claims to and does act as a representative of and spokesman for the Conservative movement -- and, she derives her income wholly from doing so. She is not just a private citizen (who, like Balwin just happens to make her living in a way that puts her in the media spotlight). She is a poltical professional. She speaks FOR the conservative movement and for her fellow conservatives. It's her job.
Posted by: esmense at March 5, 2007 11:50 AM