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 should be forced 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.
Comments are closed on this story.