I have misgivings about doing this horrid creature-with-no-conscience the favor of denouncing her vomit. But even Mitt Romney and Senator John McCandidate have denounced her words so as to be able to claim they have not stepped in it. My, haven't we come to a low point for me to be in the same company with those two on any matter! She definitely operates in the strata where "any publicity is good publicity" holds. That is how she eats.
So I sent my $50 off to Edwards' "Coulter Cash" fund. You could do the same. And I announce this fact here to any who might read it because I want it known that the desperate derogation, whatever its sick motive, has backfired completely. She is now a more potent indicator of what liberals should support than what, let alone how, conservatives should attack. But I do not thank her for this service. When my money talks, it speaks against hatred and manufactured ignorant animosity.
Sexual and personal slurs against decent candidates are certainly bad enough but I quote other recent idiocy of Coulter's here because it slanders whole causes and classes of good people whom she finds it profitable to hate:
But global warming is the most insane, psychotic idea liberals have ever concocted to kill off "useless eaters." If we have to live in a pure "natural" environment like the Indians, then our entire transcontinental nation can only support about 1 million human beings. Sorry, fellas -- 299 million of you are going to have to go.
Fighting with the likes of her is a distraction from real problems whose solutions are being delayed by that handful of political junk dealers. Upsetting greens is clearly one of her aims and I admit she has succeeded in that pointless and purely negative objective. Who is she pleasing with these lies? She has not been reclassified as a comedienne. If you know which rock to turn over, you can find the parties who see Coulter as "hilarious" In the selection of conservative blogging about Coulter's CPAC crack, the rebuke is portrayed there as muffled and they glibly equate broadcast speeches at a political convention with blogging:
Nuagle who sampled a variety of blogged conservative opinions into that post in humane vents seems to have picked the paragraphs to the benefit of a fellow columnist: in the preceding paragraph of Powers' post in fact, she demolished Coulter for the abusive attention whore she is.
Conservative bloggers should get credit for roundly denouncing "Just Ann's" statement, unlike the majority of liberal bloggers who refused to denounce the anti-Christian comments of the Edwards' bloggers. The current demands from liberal bloggers for condemnation of Ann seem sort of silly compared to the way they dug in their heels to defend the offensive and disgusting comments about Christianity made by Amanda Marcotte.
Whenever one of the right-wing hosts does the evergreen segment about the crazy left wing loonies who are running the Democrat [sic] Party, inevitably the Democrat on the set will bring up Ann Coulter as evidence of hateful speech on the right. The response is always the same: oh, that's "just Ann." It's a bizarre world where Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh and Michael Savage are not representative of conservatives, but anonymous posts on a blog are representative of liberals.Who is benefited by such "punditry"? Getting back to global calamity and class calumny, who benefits from claiming greens are bent on genocide? The under-reported fact is that ignoring the problems of sustainability is already causing mass migrations, drownings and starvations. When do we start ignoring her? When has her audience shrunk back into the the closets and truck stops where half sane, hardly informed hatred was marginalized before the sick tilt that also gave us Reagan, Bush I, Newt and Bush II? Perhaps it may be that Academy Awards and IPCC publishing the nearly unanimous findings of the world scientific community about humans wrecking the the only climate we've got have all finally soaked in to a sufficient portion of her dimwitted audience that to a working approximation, they will just STFU and at least stand back if not help us right the climate.
Perhaps, but if not...then the most positive outcome of this most negative political proxy for the Bush league might be to goad us into a bit of research: Let's learn enough to make sure we aren't inadvertent enablers of the degeneration of America's public conversations about political topics.
The staged outrage of A.C. is done for money. There are ignorant skin heads and sociopaths at the back table in barrooms, tongues loosened by drink, who say things equally vile and distant from reality...but they are not syndicated and paid to spew. They pant their mistakes into a few nearby ears where only similarly disposed minds would leave ears downwind of such stink. But hate speech, categorical denigration and lies as big as "those people want to kill you" are the poorest case you can bring before us in the name of free speech. Systematically offending large segments of society is this woman's chosen career. It pays her well enough to set one demographic at the throats of another that Ms. Coulter gets books contracts and syndication deals. Here is one way she gets paid:
uclick, LLC , an Andrews McMeel Universal company
4520 Main St., Suite 500,
Kansas City, Missouri 64111
Liberal bloggers have recently had stark reminders that the extreme right only accords complete freedom of speech for liberal viewpoints if the speaker can hardly be heard...what was said, for how long and how consistently matter little compared to the size of the pulpit. I find my self saying the same things as commenters well to the right and well to the left of political center: quit buying her a podium. I looked for advertisers. These three were in paid locations on web pages that offer A.C.'s fine sensitive words:
- Lincoln Continental,
- Norwich University
Uclick plays both sides of the street with a stable of "conservative" and "liberal" columnists...I can not fairly say to Dish or LowerMyBills.com "why do you sponsor inflammatory lying?" In this case, the worst fault lies with the syndicator themselves, so hungry for a dollar they are blind to the pollution of political discourse. The rest of uclick's list of conservative columnists, though I may fault their criteria, their choice of facts or their logic, are all readable. WF Buckley is one writer in particular whom I still delight in reading just for the diction. It was his "Firing Line" where, in my youth, I developed my ear for political speech. I cannot imagine he much cares to be electronically funneled through a cash-for-clicks cloaca that has Coulter's incurable spewage in it. Taking out Innocent bystanders in the search for a bit of justice and self restraint in media would not be acceptable to me...so I don't know if we can solve this problem anytime soon.
Flame throwers aimed at the far left by the far right only scorch the politics of the middle.
And don't give me crap like "Hey! the poor gal has a right to make a living!". Other, more traditional, forms of prostitution are vastly easier to defend on the moral grounds that there are no victims made in the process of earning the buck.
Yes, some people are so twisted they drive thought on the right and the left to similar conclusions. Kirsten Powers sees right through Coulter:
Everyone is in a lather about it, which of course is exactly what she wanted.
I have long been an advocate of ignoring her, but nobody seems willing to take me up on that idea. Can you imagine the epic depression that would engulf her if she made one of her pre-fab attacks and all she got was a collective yawn? What happens to the caricature when the audience disappears? A few cackles at a conservative conference isn't going to satiate whatever drives her -- the drive that forces her to hike up her skirt, drape her cleavage with a cross and insist repeatedly that she is a devout Christian as she spews her famous brand of hateful rhetoric. No, she needs the world to react to her.
And Scott Galindez, editor at Truthout.org concludes: