Sunday, March 04, 2007
More Slime from Slimegirl. When I addressed a gay issue yesterday, I could not know that mere hours later the odious Radical Right agent provocateur Ann Coulter would issue one of the more bizarre remarks so far in the 2008 Presidential race.
Her remark was met with approving lafter within the room, and no sign of disapproval from her Radical Right audience.
+
Hm. I'm unclear as to what exactly that was supposed to mean. Is she suggesting that Edwards is a homo? He's a goodlooking guy, married to a markedly less attractive woman. Ordinarily, if one member of a heterosexual couple is strikingly less attractive, it is the man, women tending to care less about appearance than do men. If Edwards were covering up homosexuality, the appearance of his 'wife' wouldn't much matter, and a relatively unattractive woman might settle for a beautiful 'husband' as trophy, even if he is not really available to her.
+
Or is Coulter merely suggesting that Edwards is impermissibly pro-gay? That seems unlikely, inasmuch as there would be no reason to single out Edwards for that, since there are a number of pro-gay candidates, including the Republican Giuliani. Coulter's attempt to calm the storm of criticism her remark raised was comparably muddled:
But Ann Coulter is nothing but mean. She is a totally evil woman with not a shred of decency, the very picture of the perfect Radical Right woman.
+
If Coulter was "outing" Edwards from some information she has that I don't, and Edwards is in fact gay, he should "come out", finally. I have no patience with politicians who hide in the closet. If he is not gay, he should say that expressly, in a statement along these lines:
I will be interested to see what happens. Will Ann Coulter be repudiated by every decent person now, as she should have been years ago? Or will she weather this storm as the odious Rush Limbaugh weathered the storm over his seeming hypocrisy in denouncing drugs and then becoming addicted to a prescription painkiller that he got illicitly? It seems the Radical "Right" (can't we find another word?) is far more forgiving of sins among their clan (sorry: klan) than people with integrity. Perhaps it will take a careless statement of contempt for the audience, as in the film A Face in the Crowd, for these vile beasts to alienate their crowd of yahoos. But they may be too clever to be caught. The Radical Right will, it seems, forgive anything, as long as the miscreant toes the line on basic bigotries. Witness Ted Haggard, the evangelical leader exposed as a homo , who begged forgiveness for his 'sins', and committed himself to a five-year moral rehabilitation. He emerged mere weeks later claiming to be "100% heterosexual"! Will he regain his place in Rightwing circles? Or does everyone believe he's just a liar who can't face the fact that he's a homo?
+
Rightwingers need to be very careful about their bigotries/politics. It's one thing to hate blacks, because white guys are not about to change race. But when you take a stand against homosexuality or drug use and your heroes turn out to be 'queers' and druggies, you ought to have the integrity to turn against them, not overlook THEIR "sins" but continue to agitate against OTHER people for the SAME 'sins'.
+
(This is copied from my political blog, The Expansionist / The Anti-Post, of the same date.)
Ann Coulter caused quite a stir Friday night at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC). Coulter, who was asked to comment on former North Carolina Senator and Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards, responded: "It turns out you have to go into rehab if you use the word 'faggot,' so I'm kind of at an impasse — I can't really talk about Edwards," she said.
Her remark was met with approving lafter within the room, and no sign of disapproval from her Radical Right audience.
+
Hm. I'm unclear as to what exactly that was supposed to mean. Is she suggesting that Edwards is a homo? He's a goodlooking guy, married to a markedly less attractive woman. Ordinarily, if one member of a heterosexual couple is strikingly less attractive, it is the man, women tending to care less about appearance than do men. If Edwards were covering up homosexuality, the appearance of his 'wife' wouldn't much matter, and a relatively unattractive woman might settle for a beautiful 'husband' as trophy, even if he is not really available to her.
+
Or is Coulter merely suggesting that Edwards is impermissibly pro-gay? That seems unlikely, inasmuch as there would be no reason to single out Edwards for that, since there are a number of pro-gay candidates, including the Republican Giuliani. Coulter's attempt to calm the storm of criticism her remark raised was comparably muddled:
Coulter told the New York Times the remark was meant as a joke. "I would never insult gays by suggesting that they are like John Edwards," she said. "That would be mean."
But Ann Coulter is nothing but mean. She is a totally evil woman with not a shred of decency, the very picture of the perfect Radical Right woman.
+
If Coulter was "outing" Edwards from some information she has that I don't, and Edwards is in fact gay, he should "come out", finally. I have no patience with politicians who hide in the closet. If he is not gay, he should say that expressly, in a statement along these lines:
Contrary to Ann Coulter's implication, I am not homosexual. If I were, I'd admit it, without shame. But I'm not. I don't need to make a show of my heterosexuality to disprove Coulter's assertion, and I certainly am not going to sue her for slander, since being called homosexual is not a slander, just a misstatement or malicious lie intended to harm me among an audience I don't much care about appealing to anyway. Since there's nothing wrong with being gay, there's nothing slanderous about being called gay. It would make no more sense to sue for slander over that than it would to sue if some demented bitch claimed I was black. That might actually gain me some votes, as would being gay. But I'm not black either.
I will be interested to see what happens. Will Ann Coulter be repudiated by every decent person now, as she should have been years ago? Or will she weather this storm as the odious Rush Limbaugh weathered the storm over his seeming hypocrisy in denouncing drugs and then becoming addicted to a prescription painkiller that he got illicitly? It seems the Radical "Right" (can't we find another word?) is far more forgiving of sins among their clan (sorry: klan) than people with integrity. Perhaps it will take a careless statement of contempt for the audience, as in the film A Face in the Crowd, for these vile beasts to alienate their crowd of yahoos. But they may be too clever to be caught. The Radical Right will, it seems, forgive anything, as long as the miscreant toes the line on basic bigotries. Witness Ted Haggard, the evangelical leader exposed as a homo , who begged forgiveness for his 'sins', and committed himself to a five-year moral rehabilitation. He emerged mere weeks later claiming to be "100% heterosexual"! Will he regain his place in Rightwing circles? Or does everyone believe he's just a liar who can't face the fact that he's a homo?
+
Rightwingers need to be very careful about their bigotries/politics. It's one thing to hate blacks, because white guys are not about to change race. But when you take a stand against homosexuality or drug use and your heroes turn out to be 'queers' and druggies, you ought to have the integrity to turn against them, not overlook THEIR "sins" but continue to agitate against OTHER people for the SAME 'sins'.
+
(This is copied from my political blog, The Expansionist / The Anti-Post, of the same date.)
