But the guy Ann Coulter called a faggot is married to a woman who is drop dead gorgeous.
Ann Coulter is not.
While it’s usually really lame to point out physical attributes of women in politics as its seldom done for men (See Tom Roeser) it seems fitting since Ann brought up another irrelevant feature of a candidate.
I don’t condone Coulter’s comments at all. They were ugly and off-based, to put it mildly.
But what’s really worse: a decidely UNofficial “spokesperson” for an ideology mocking a presidential candidate, or an official spokesperson for that presidential candidate mocking (in an even uglier and more profane way) an entire religion?
Every single Republican candidate has denounced and distanced themself from Coulter. Edward’s blogger had to resign of their own accord because John didn’t have the decency to fire them.
GOP,
Please. Rove has also mocked Christians as being lemmings willing to follow whomever seems to be in front.
He’s been neither chastised nor fired (nor, for that matter, has he resigned).
And the person complaining the loudest about the statements Edwards’ bloggers made (long before they were ever hired)? Well Bill Donohue has made plenty of anti-Muslim, anti-gay, and anti-Semitic remarks in his day… Yet he’s still in charge of and a spokesman for a large Catholic organization.
Does that mean the Catholics he purports to speak for are also anti-Semitic, GOP?
And, of course, Edwards’ bloggers weren’t the only presidential campaign bloggers to have made controversial statements before being hired. John McCain’s bloggers are but one example.
Your hypocrisy stinks.
Yeah, most bloggers didn’t point this out. Unlike Edwards, Coulter has never been married, and she’s 46 years old. At one point, she dated Dinesh “FDR is responsible for 9/11” D’Souza, but John Edwards has been married (to a woman) since he was 24. Not that there’s anything wrong with it, but maybe Ann herself is gay.
Do you hate to point it out because that drop-dead gorgeous woman whipped your behind here one day? I wonder if she’ll be back to thank you today. 🙂
Anway, what’s all this about an ankleholder at a conservative convention claiming John Edwards is a British cigarette? Why are ankleholders allowed on stage at these things? Don’t those people know what ankleholders do in their bedrooms? Is that “conservative”?
… Oh, wait… Ann Coulter. Ah, I get it now. That makes more sense.
Nevermind.
But I’m still wondering why John Edwards is a Dunhill.
Have you read the post in question? I wouldn’t have said it, but I also think Bill Donahue’s rants are a bit over the top. The post in question is about a Catholic document on family planning–not the moral stance on birth control.
http://pandagon.net/2006/06/14/pandagon-goes-undercover-the-lazy-way-on-a-catholic-anti-contraception-seminar-pt-ii/
The document specifically misrepresents the science behind contraception and she’s making fun of that. The friend she got it from is Catholic and was deeply disturbed by the document as well. She parodies it with the bit about the Virgin Mary which is obnoxious, but I’m not sure how it is bigoted when it’s criticizing through spoofing it the specifics in the document which is medically inaccurate.
Her posts criticized positions of the church, not the status of being Catholic. Amanda is obnoxious, but that’s different than being a bigot. She isn’t criticizing individuals for their beliefs in the sense of what they are, but for what they mean in public policy and discussion. This is very similar to the claim that Jeremiah Wright is antisemitic. He’s not bigoted against Jews as Roeser claims, he disagrees with Israeli policy and it’s effect on the larger world.
The posts in question are about very specific things, not criticisms of all Catholics or even the faith as a whole, but how the institution interacts with the larger world. I can’t believe she was ever hired, but that’s a different story–and certainly one in which the real problem is she absolutely lacks any civility.
With Coulter it’s hard to come up with a comparable example. She didn’t criticize a particular belief, she used an epithet like Papist. If she had made an argument that there are unhealthy sexual practices in the gay community or immoral sexual practices she’d probably be accused of being homophobic, but there are certainly ways to make those arguments and not be homophobic.
Let me add—first–I was right about my post about EE given the Marcotte fiasco.
Second, GOPartisan, I’m not dismissing your point–talking about religion is very difficult. I’m happy to make fun of some of the more ridiculous beliefs in Christianity, but that doesn’t make me anti-Christian–I’d have to be self-loathing.
I also have a lot of fun at the expense of Scientologists and the those who follow Maharishi Mahesh Yogi and think they can fly when they flap their knees. These are somewhat extreme examples and I get heckled in comments from them from time to time, but should I not be making fun of them?
Now I do differentiate between Catholicism and those two and I do think one should be respectful which Marcotte is not. However, criticizing a practice of a faith isn’t the same as criticizing the adherent in particular for being an adherent. Another example would be the attitudes towards Muslims which give many people carte blanche to attack individual muslims for beliefs the individual often does not hold.
Arch –
“Her posts criticized positions of the church, not the status of being Catholic”
– Exactly. She criticized the positions the church (also known as the beliefs of millions of Americans) in a graphic, profane, and utterly disrespectful (also known as offensive) manner.
Why should it not bother me that Edwards defended her rather than denounce her comments (the way every Republican has of Coulter)?
====Why should it not bother me that Edwards defended her rather than denounce her comments (the way every Republican has of Coulter)?
he did denounce her comments:
“The tone and the sentiment of some of Amanda Marcotte’s and Melissa McEwen’s posts personally offended me. It’s not how I talk to people, and it’s not how I expect the people who work for me to talk to people. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but that kind of intolerant language will not be permitted from anyone on my campaign, whether it’s intended as satire, humor, or anything else. But I also believe in giving everyone a fair shake. I’ve talked to Amanda and Melissa; they have both assured me that it was never their intention to malign anyone’s faith, and I take them at their word. We’re beginning a great debate about the future of our country, and we can’t let it be hijacked. It will take discipline, focus, and courage to build the America we believe in.”
Let me offer another example of this–I’m often told because I don’t believe in a literal 7 day creation I’m not a Christian. Apparently the Pope wouldn’t be either since he recently referred to a literal interpretation of Genesis as a Pagan belief.
The example cuts both ways in this one. The Pope has just called millions of Christians Pagans and creationists have just called the Pope and I fake Christians. Are we all then banned from reasonable criticism of other faiths?
And to be sure–I nor Edwards liked the way Marcotte made her criticism but it’s not bigoted. It’s incivil which is certainly a problem, but a different one.
fair enough, he did rebuke her.
And i’ll remember that in the future, not having an intention to malign someone or their beliefs is a legitimate defense when someone is offended by what is said. (Perhaps if we had that rule a few years ago, we wouldn’t be talking about Trent Lott’s ‘comeback.’)
I think you are missing what I’m saying. In the case of Lott, he was advocating a position that endorsed Jim Crow. Now, if that was a religious belief, does that mean we shouldn’t criticize him because many people hold that belief?
Religious beliefs should be respected to a degree, but they aren’t immune from critique. I don’t have a problem of critiquing the Catholic Church as patriarchal. That’s a legitimate criticism when it comes to how the church interfaces with society as a whole. I’ve also heard many good defenses of how the Church isn’t negatively patriarchal, but it’s one of the many reasons I’m Presbyterian and not Catholic. I think the way Amanda did it was obnoxious and offensive, but not bigoted. In fact, it was in reference to her Catholic friend who was a health care professional and offended by the tone of the document in question that she made the comments. She was attacking the misrepresentation of the medical facts by the institution in the context of a feminist critique of that particular practice.
Whoa there Arch….
Trent Lott was being flattering to an elder on his birthday. YOU (and others) read something into it that he never really said, but was forced to apologize for anyway. According to the Edwards blogger precident, because Lott did not INTEND to offend anyone, his comments should be excused and forgotten – right?
Both incidents raise similar questions: does it matter if the comments were meant to offend, or does the fact that people were offended make them offensive in and of itself? Does it matter if those offended are reasonably justified or not? This isn’t the first time that liberals and Democrats have demonstrated that they answer those questions differently depending on whether the allegedly offensive remarks were “directed” at racial minorities or Christian sects.
It’s not about whether one intends to insult someone else and it’s not about whether someone offends someone else. That’s a standard you are trying to push, not me and I do hate Amanda’s claim that she never meant to offend–she did.
Criticizing a belief is different than criticizing a person. Beliefs aren’t untouchable. I would never say they are. You and I criticize people all of the time for different things they happen to believe and how they attempt to put that into public policy.
It entirely consistent to then criticize someone for saying one of the most despicable racists in the country would have made America a better place. More than that Trent Lott had a history of hanging out with members of the Council of Conservative Citizens. It didn’t happen in a vacuum.
Grand Ol’ wrote: Why should it not bother me that Edwards defended her rather than denounce her comments (the way every Republican has of Coulter)?
This is very easy to refute Grand. Too easy.
Where were the Republicans denouncing Coulter’s claims that liberals are traitors, the natural conclusion of which is that your good friends here on this blog ought to deported or executed? Indeed, she goes so far as to declare her own little fatwa against liberals. In modern terms, a fatwa often calls for the death of your opponents.
Where were the Republicans denouncing Coulter’s further claims that the 9/11 widows are whores who profited from their husbands untimely deaths (more on that here?
Grand Old Partisan, where were your fellow Republicans’ denouncements of those clearly malignant statements?
If they were there… they were kept well-hidden from view and very quiet. Kind of odd since conservatives and others who oppose what they call “Islamists” are often calling on moderate Muslims to reign in their brethren.
In this particular case regarding Coulter’s description of the very manly man Sen. John Edwards, however, we turn to one Fran Eaton to refute Mr. Partisan’s claims that Coulter is being denounced (implying she’s being universally denounced).
Fran Eaton is a very prominent Republican and conservative activist. She worked for Alan Keyes for one, and still defends Jack! Ryan to this day — both are conservative, and both are Republican, ergo Fran Eaton is quite likely to be conservative and to vote Republican.
Eaton didn’t denounce Coulter’s comments. In fact, she did the opposite.
Instead, Eaton claims we are at war. Granted, many conservatives wax poetic about the Culture War they perceive to be going on… other conservatives like Eric Rudolph and Tim McVeigh hoped to turn this relative ‘cold’ war into a hot one through their terrorist bombings.
In her mind, since we Americans are at war with each other (Eaton’s belief, not mine), Eaton thinks Coulter’s remark are justifiable and that any criticism from fellow Republicans ought to be kept private, perhaps to avoid the public at large perceiving a weakness among the ‘warriors’ (this is very much like the partisans which chirp “cut-n-run” at the Hagels, Warners, Murthas and Obamas of the nation).
Don’t believe me? You can look it up and refute your claim yourself…
Fran Eaton‘s statement: “Calling for Ann to stop being what she is is wrong. If she is out of line, we let the movement take care of it and simply ignore what she says, we don’t turn on her or discipline her publicly.
This is war — against the liberals and what they stand for. We have to use the weapons we have, and war just isn’t pretty and nice. It’s war. These things will happen now and then….”
—
Now if you want to get into the actual rationale behind those Republicans who are actually denouncing Coulter’s remarks… you have to look at what was different between the “f*****” remark and the earlier traitors and whores statements.
The only difference is that she was at the Conservative Political Action Committee annual meeting instead of off on her own.
Conservatives don’t want their annual festivities to actually be connected to the people who promote conservatism and profit greatly from the very same hate speech which is usually applauded (and well-compensated) by conservatives. Odd, that.
This is not unlike the 2004 GOP Presidential Convention in which moderates like Gov. Schwarzenegger and Mayor Giuliani were trotted out in primetime instead of the conservative base’s heroes like Sens. Santorum, Inhofe or Brownback.
If I were a conservative, I’d be a bit incensed at the so-called Coulter backlash… but as Fran Eaton reveals, this “denouncing” isn’t really about Coulter at all.
It’s about the conservatives’ war on their fellow Americans.
“Criticizing a belief is different than criticizing a person. Beliefs aren’t untouchable.”
And people are?
This is a very interesting line of thought, Arch. I guess we will have to agree to disgaree here, because I am more troubled by people who ignorantly attack the deeply held religious beliefs of millions than I am by someone who ignorantly attacks an individual politician. But that’s just me.
But again, do you feel criticizing the beliefs of the Scientologists when they try to impose their beliefs on the public sphere? I certainly don’t.
And person above is a clumsy statement–but a trait irrelevant to participation in society. One’s faith is irrelevant in general, except when that belief is being used to shape the society and policy. I don’t know how you can have a claim to using your faith to inform your political positions and then say one cannot criticize them. It doesn’t match up. There are respectful ways to criticize and not criticize, but criticism in itself is legitimate.
It’s an entirely different thing to attack someone as a Papist then to attack a policy the Catholic Church is trying to influence in the public sphere. One is bigoted, the other is public debate. I can’t think of many beliefs Catholics hold that I find offensive, though there are many I disagree with–however, I can beliefs from others that I feel free to ridicule for those of another faith when they try and impose it on society–Scientology’s weird anti-psychiatry positions being one of the best examples.
Is calling a Scientologist belief that we should ban anti-depressants and anti-scientific and stupid idea offensive to them? Yes it is, and I mean to be disrespectful in such cases. I’m not going to discriminate against someone who is a scientologist, but that doesn’t mean I can’t challenge them in the public sphere. Okay, I wouldn’t have a scientologist as a psychiatrist, but I think that’s understandable.
“There are respectful ways to criticize and not criticize, but criticism in itself is legitimate.”
Oh, please. She wasn’t simply “criticizing” a Catholic belief in a disrespectful way. She was clearly mocking it in the most profanely offensive way she could possibly think of.
I don’t think you read the post did you? The post in question and the post before it both add a lot of context to what she is saying and in the specific area of bad medical information being distributed.
Arch – I don’t care how much “context” there is surrounding it. The post still insulted Catholics by referring to the Holy Spirit (which to them, is part of the Trinity and thus THEIR GOD) as “hot, white, sticky” ejaculation.
Again, that is more than “criticizing” a Catholic belief in a disrespectful way. It is offensive, plain and simple. And – to me, at least – not any less objectively offensive than calling John Edwards a f***** (and to suggest that Amanda didn’t know that such a statement would be offensive is to say very little about her intellectual prowess).
“Drop Dead Gorgeous????????????”
WTF?????????????:
http://johnedwards.com/media/photos/raleigh/6368.html
So, Archpundit’s a chubby-chaser, eh?