Pro-Romney site equates Howard Dean with Ann Coulter

Yesterday, you'll remember, Ann Coulter, speaking about John Edwards, said the following vile, hateful words: "I was going to have a few comments on the other Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards, but it turns out you have to go into rehab if you use the word 'faggot,' so I - so kind of an impasse, can't really talk about Edwards." In a well-crafted response, Howard Dean said, "There is no place in political discourse for this kind of hate-filled and bigoted comments. While Democrats and Republicans may disagree on the issues, we should all be able to agree that this kind of vile rhetoric is out of bounds. The American people want a serious, thoughtful debate of the issues. Republicans - including the Republican presidential candidates who shared the podium with Ann Coulter today - should denounce her hateful remarks."

So, to recap, one the one hand you've got a disgusting statement by someone - Coulter - with a track record of similar statements. And, on the other, the measured response of an individual - Dean - simply asking those GOP presidential hopefuls speaking at the same conference as Coulter to, in his words, denounce her hateful remarks. One problem, one I anticipated when I called on conscienceless conservative Nancy French - of, among other things, the Web site Evangelicals for Mitt - to say, without a shred of hesitation, that there is no place in the political world for comments like Coulter's, whose appearance after Romney's at CPAC, said Romney, was "a good thing". And that problem is this: Someone at Evangelicals for Mitt doesn't think what Coulter said was wrong.

Specifically, Charles Mitchell, in a post titled "Ann Coulter was Ann Coulter" (echoing a post by Kathryn Jean Lopez), wrote, "Here's the problem for Chairman Dean, though: His rhetoric (claiming the remark was 'hate-filled and bigoted') is no less overblown than Coulter's. What she said was not hate-filled; it was just unnecessary and way over the line."Wrong, Charles. In what universe is calling someone a "faggot", as Coulter did, not hate-filled? I'm guessing it's the same universe in which pointing out someone's clear bigotry - bigotry with a history - is an offense as bad as what Coulter's. Using the pejorative "faggot" is, Charles, in its very use, hate-filled. Coulter wasn't kidding. She meant what she said. And the use of terms like that - try replacing "faggot" with "nigger" - suggests a situation where, to the bigot, one group of people is somehow better than another. In other words, that the maligned are less than human.

And that, Charles, is hate-filled and bigoted. Nothing you say can or will change that. What's worse, you continue by writing, "He [Romney] doesn't have anything to prove here, as K-Lo also points out, and I don't think the campaign should give in to this silly game of 'Gotcha.'" You're wrong, Charles, Slick Dancing Mitt has everything to prove, as do the other candidates present at CPAC. Either he denounces Coulter's words, as he half-heartedly did, or he doesn't. And please excuse me for laughing at your characterization of "gotcha" and the suggestion that Romney not give in to our "silly game". If Edwards himself shouldbeforced to respond to the out-of-context and unrelated words of Amanda Marcotte and Melissa McEwan, why, Charles, shouldn't your candidate have to respond to a very specific, very hateful comment made about Edwards by someone your candidate had just endorsed? I'm very much looking forward to your response.

Words matter, Charles. And so does morality. To me, it doesn't speak very highly about your candidate's morality that he so eagerly endorsed Coulter. So you're wrong when you accuse others of "trying to kill the positive momentum Governor Romney's CPAC speech gave him by tying him to a remark Coulter made about Senator Edwards." When Romney preceded Coulter by telling the CPAC audience Coulter's appearance was "a good thing", he wasn't just endorsing what she was about to say, which, of course, turned out to be embarrassing. He was also flatly endorsing everything Coulter has said before. And Charles, I'm sure even someone with your powers of discernment would admit to Coulter's long history of outlandish statements. Hell, at last year's CPAC, she said, "I think our motto should be post-9-11, 'raghead talks tough, raghead faces consequences.'" How would you characterize that remark, Charles? Is that not hate-filled? Are my criticisms overblown? Until we get an answer to those questions, all anyone needs to know about you is that, when Coulter called Edwards a "faggot", you excused it.

Apologist, heal thyself.

Tags: Ann Coulter, Evangelical christians, hypocrisy, John Edwards, Mitt Romney, religious right (all tags)

Diaries

Advertise Blogads