Blue Mass Group

Reality-based commentary on politics.

Will Romney repudiate Ann Coulter’s vile, homophobic attack on John Edwards?

By

Mitt Romney, during his speech at CPAC (TP has the video):

I’m happy to learn also that, after you hear me, you’re going to hear from Ann Coulter.  That is a good thing.  Oh yeah!

Ann Coulter then popped out something so repulsive that even the CPAC audience seemed momentarily stunned by it.

If you can’t stand to watch it, she said:

I was going to have a few comments on the other Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards, but it turns out that you have to go into rehab if you use the word “faggot,” [pause for the audience to wonder if she really just said that, then half-heartedly applaud] so kind of at an impasse, can’t really talk about Edwards.

Oh, one more thing.  Ann Coulter has endorsed Mitt Romney for president, at least as between Romney, McCain, Giuliani, and Gingrich.

So.  Will Mitt Romney repudiate Coulter’s endorsement, or at least her disgusting hateful comments, especially after he gave her that warm intro?  Does he mean it when he says that, whatever he thinks of gay marriage, no one should be discriminated against?  Or is it all bullshit?

We’re waiting.

Please share widely!
fb-share-icon
Tweet
0

Comments

    • Your allusion is actually, well, wrong. 

      <

      p>
      Ann Coulter’s propagandist rhetoric, i.e., her “30 year hate” would be Orwell’s equivalent, I’m afraid, not any two-minute response by random Democrats.  Nice try, though. 

        • I imagine there’s not a small amount of botoxification at work here. 

          <

          p>
          I was trying to give her the benefit of the doubt on her infancy, childhood, and preadolescent years, but I suspect my optimism is unwarranted. 

          • …botox is a poison.  That, and the obvious anorexia, may have affected her brain.  Not her bank account, obviously, but her brain.

  2. This is vile, but it also seems calculated to me.

    <

    p>
    Why Democrats don’t embarrass the Republican party for its continued embrace of this fascist is beyond me, just beyond me.

      • I meant to continue:
        Why are you at all surprised at the Dems ignoring such hateful points of view?  How many times have I been flogged on BMG for insisting that candidates be pressured to treat gay people as full human beings deserving of full citizenship/civil equality?  I constantly get the lame “we [people who have all our rights] all have our pet issues” response.  So, why would the Dems respond at all to this sort of slam, when few non-gay Dem voters ever hold them accountable to even minimal standards of respect for LGBT citizens?  Howard Dean himself refuses to acknowledge that the Dem platform calls for LGBT civil rights.  So, maybe it will finally dawn on folks that, guess what, there are lots of homophobes in the Dem party.

        • So, why would the Dems respond at all to this sort of slam, when few non-gay Dem voters ever hold them accountable to even minimal standards of respect for LGBT citizens?

          There are more than a few non-gay Dem voters for whome LGBT rights are very important. Personally, I know more than a few. Progressive unity is very, very important if we’re going to make any progress on anything. Could I beg you to please point your firearm outside our circle?

          • and sometimes unity is not so apparent to all of us.  no one likes to hear that, but it is the truth.

            • Undeserved criticism among us is particularly damaging. (The other side uses it against us.) So it’s something we should be careful with. I’m not arguing for stupidity, blindness, or being a polyanna; I’m saying please recognize the political context.

              <

              p>
              If everyone leaps to think cynical things about liberals and hardly anyone does that to reactionaries and conservatives, guess who gets to call the shots.

              <

              p>
              Guess what that does to anything you and I care about.

              • Who said anything about liberals?  You said “Dems” in your initial criticism.  I take that to mean DNC or major Dem candidates.  But it seems you are conflating liberals/progressives with Dems, or you think I am.  You criticized the Dems for not speaking out against coulter’s brand of crap talk, then you get on my case for agreeing, and explaining why I see it happening.  Jeez Kbusch, can no one but you ever criticize the Dems?  Face it, the DNC is no great friend of LGBT people.  At this point, we are but an ATM to them.  To individual dems, yes, we are important, but not to the DNC (except financially).  And don;t worry, I have plenty of vitriol for the Repubs.  But this is largely a site by, for and about progressives, is it not?  Well, so if we can’t examine our flaws here, where will we ever?

                • I say not.  Its BLUEmassgroup not PROGESSIVEmassgroup.  Its more for Democrats than for Progressives.  If I’m wrong editors please chime in. 

                  <

                  p>
                  As you yourself point out not all Democrats are on the same page about every issue and we are certainly not all “progressives.”  Nancy Keenan sent out an e-mail alert to NARAL rapid responders last week worrying about the growing strength of Democrats for Life of America.  There is a huge disconnect between the convention goers who write the platforms and rank and file party members.  As you again mention, plenty of Democrats oppose SSM. 

                  <

                  p>
                  That said, Laurel, I’m sure Socrates would  agree that the unexamined party is not worth voting for.

                • Charley – Someday, I want you to sit down and have a couple of beers with David and Cos – and hammer out the distinctions between Liberal, Progressive, and Democrat.  Obviously, the first two are not tied to a party, but the difference between them is interesting.  Both the intersections and the differences.

                • “hammer out the distinctions between Liberal, Progressive, and Democrat.”

                  <

                  p>
                  This I gotta see

                • A Liberal, Progressive and a Democrat walk into a bar.  Bartender says, what is this, some kind of joke?

                • The success of progressives is tied to the success of the Democratic Party. If we want liberalism to advance, that means strongly preferring Edwards or Clinton in the White House to Rudy McRomney.

        • to denounce Coulter, so he is doing at least one of the things you asked, and BTW, I totally agree with you about the bullshit “we all have our pet issues”, and BTW, it’s not just non-gay Dems that have been nonsensitive in some cases, and total Uncle Toms in some instances.  It’s simply outrageous.

          • Amy Contrada of MassResistance says John Howard has reached out to them for help in his fight against same-sex conception:

            <

            p>
            http://massresistanc…

            <

            p>
            Tuesday, February 27, 2007
            Are Same-Sex Parented Embryos Imminent?

            <

            p>
            Until lately, most pro-lifers’ energies were devoted to the abortion issue. Now, they’re also concerned about cloning and embryonic stem-cell research. But how many are aware of this other very troubling area of research: engineering embryos from two parent cells of the same sex.

            <

            p>
            …

            <

            p>
            John Howard, a Massachusetts activist pushing for legislation banning this frightening research, has reminded us of his blog on this subject. We encourage you to contact him if you’re interested in promoting legislation to block this looming nightmare.

            <

            p>
            MassResistance is also attacking Ann Coulter for supporting Mitt Romney:

            <

            p>
            http://massresistanc…

            <

            p>
            Friday, March 02, 2007
            Black Roots, Bad Make-Up & Romney

            <

            p>
            We try not to stoop to ad hominem comments. But this time, any attempt at reasoned argument seems a lost cause, and we can’t help ourselves…

            <

            p>
            Two prominent conservative women have let the movement down big time. Ann Coulter now endorsing Romney? And Kate O’Beirne (there goes National Review’s credibility again!)? Didn’t they see our report on Mitt Romney’s deceptions? Are they just looking at his hair?

      • Or worse than a cynical motive. Ann Coulter wants to descredit liberals completely. She wants us so discredited that we are physically fearful. An insult, like the one here, is part of that program. When I say she is a fascist, I mean it quite sincerely.

    • just demanded that not only Romney, but the other GOP presidential candidates denounce Coulter, so it’s not all the Dems that are deafeningly silent in the wake of these attacks, ust 99.9% of them.

      • All he said was that we should all talk nice.  Not one positive word or sentiment about how Dems stand for fairness, equality and respect for all Americans, gay or straight (you know, like it says in the platform?).  But that ‘g’ word – he just can never seem to spit it out.  This is the guy who a few months ago insisted to Pat Robertson that the Dem party is against marriage equality and supports only the 1 man + 1 woman definition. 

        <

        p>
        This is/was an amazing opportunity for the Dems to step up and take a stand for equaliy.  But no, Dean sent a piddling “play nice” fax to FOX news and that’s it.  Coulter wins.

        • Gay?  If so, he’s said the word time and time again.

          <

          p>
          Regarding Dean’s appearance on the 700 Club, yes, he appeared there, and that may have been what put the Dems over the top in crucial battleground states like Missouri and Virginia, giving the Dems the senate.  Who would you rather have benefiting from pandering to the wingnuts – the Dems or the GOP?  Now that the Dems have the Senate, they will be able to pay much less attention to those idiots because of the advantages of incumbency.  I’m sure most of Pat Robertson’s audience doesn’t want Dean to move forward on hate crimes legislation and ENDA — but he’s going ahead and doing it.  Do you think the GOP would extend the same courtesy after they pandered to Robertson’s audience?

          <

          p>
          You should know how many DL closet cases in Cambridge, Massachusetts, of all places are basically viscerally attacking anyone who even wants to push the Dems to pass even those two pieces of long stalled federal legislation.  I’ve got news for you – we have problems getting our ‘community’ and our allies lined up and united, and Howard Dean doesn’t even make the top 10 on that list.

          <

          p>
          Shall I give you a link to what kind of discussions I’ve had on a message board of the gay ‘community’?

    • I think you mean “48-minute” cycle.

      <

      p>
      It’s not like she leased a car, or anything.

  4. I have come to expect this from Ann Coulter. Is anyone really surprised she said this?

    • I actually wonder if she both endorsed Willard and then did this to deliberately sabotage his campaign.  But then I have to ask myself – who could feel threatened by Willard and also be able to afford Coulter?  Maybe she just gave someone a freebie.  But who?

  5. …is the radical right getting more crazy? Eschewing subtlty and in favor of bold, fringe rhetoric?

    <

    p>
    What the eff is going on in this country? It seems as if the mid-term elections were a perverbial full moon for right wing lunatics to say and do whatever they want. What is behind this new found insanity?

    • This is not a right and left on the political spectrum issue.  I consider myself to be far to the right on the political spectrum, but those beliefs say that people should be allowed to do what they want as long as they are not hurting or interfering with others.  When it comes to LGBT rights issues, I believe that either the state allows everyone to marry or, my personal choice, they get out of the marriage business all together and everyone has to actually go to a lawyer and get a civil union type agreement.

      <

      p>
      The Republican Party and portions of the Democrat Party have been hijacked by religion that has taken them both away from their core values.  The worst part is that it is not the majority of either of these groups just a very vocal minority.  Or rather I should say that the majority of the people in America are not represented by these views.  It’s not just LGBT issues that this religious hijacking is affecting, there’s steam cell research, the Shiavo case, the education of our kids (evolution and sex ed), etc.

      <

      p>
      In my opinion we need a legitimate third party in this country to bring the other two back towards more moderate positions.  Similar to something the GGW suggested, maybe this needs to be progressives and fiscal conservatives and possibly greens working together to bring light to these issues.

      <

      p>
      That being said, as I have pointed out in the past, I think the LGBT community over reacts to what they preserve as “hate speech.”  I said this regarding the suspension and later firing of talk radio hosts in this area and the reaction to the Snickers ad.  I usually feel this is an overreaction to how people, particularly men, joke around with their friends.  This is not one of those cases.  Ann Coulter did mean this in a hateful way and I think outrage from the LGBT community at Ann is just.  Calling for Mitt and other GOP candidates to denounce this may be a bit of a stretch.  She is not a member of any of their campaigns or the RNC.  But I don’t think it would be too much for Mitt to come out and say something like “I appreciate Ann’s support but feel her language was a little over the line the other night.”

      • JK, “far to the right” does not always mean “libertarian”. In fact, “right-wing” rarely means that as far as I can tell. It includes a lot of people who don’t all agree (Gingrich, Robertson, Kristol, Buchanan, Schlafly). In Kansas, for example, one’s social conservativism is far more indicative of whether one is classified a moderate or conservative Republican (per Franks’ book) than one’s enthusiasm for the free market.

  7. Mitt isn’t exactly a stand up guy under the best of conditions.  It makes you sick, doesn’t it?

    <

    p>
    But eventually…this woman will simply go away; mass disgust will finally hit critical mass.  Every dawg does have their day, and little Annie will get hers.  The sound of people ignoring her will finally push her into the oblivion she so richly deserves. 

    • Let’s see. Her books Treason, How to Talk to a Liberal, and Godless all made it to the Best Seller list. Conservatives who think she is embarrassing or unprinicpled have a cornered sound to them (“WHY WON”T SOMEOMNE LISTEN TO ME!!!?”) like this guy on Red State:

      I rarely agree with you on anything  by kyle8

      But, if this blows up on Republicans then all I can say is good, it needs to. I have been screaming on this and other sites for a long time now we cannot continue to embrace that kind of hate monger that is Ann Coulter.

      Sure, she makes you laugh? she is right on most issues? she looks good in a short skirt? SO the hell what? Are we conservatives with principles or or we just a bunch of childish name callers like the liberals?

      There is no place for this anymore than there was a place with Edwards for the like of Marcotte, and anyone who endorses or makes excuses for Coulter, has no right to bash someone like Marcotte.

      Apparently, the childish name callers are getting the upper hand.

  8. Or,
    Queen Dracula and Dead Eyes Romney…a match made in

    <

    blockquote>”. . . . . . Hail horrours, hail
    Infernal world, and thou profoundest Hell
    Receive thy new Possessor; One who brings
    A mind not to be chang’d by Place or Time.
    The mind is its own place, and in it self
    Can make a Heav’n of Hell, a Hell of Heav’n
    What matter where, if I be still the same,
    And what should I be, all but less than he
    Whom thunder hath made greater? Here at least
    We shall be free; th’ Almighty hath not built
    Here for his envy, will not drive us hence:
    Here we may reign secure, and in my choyce
    To reign is worth ambition though in Hell:
    Better to reign in Hell, than serve in Heav’n.”

    <

    p>
    …John Milton, Paradise Lost (Book 1)

      • I agree with Donald Sutherland in Animal House:

        <

        p>

        “OK, don’t write this down, but I find Milton probably as boring as you find Milton. Mrs. Milton found him boring too. He’s a little bit long-winded, he doesn’t translate very well into our generation, and his jokes are terrible. [Bell rings, students rise to leave] But that doesn’t relieve you of your responsibility for this material. Now I’m waiting for reports from some of you… Listen, I’m not joking. This is my job!”

        <

        p>
        Sound Clip

        • Milton was blind.  He dictated his work to his daughter.

          <

          p>
          Try writing a paragraph in your head, based on facts you already know — so that your dictation is “edited” the first time through.

          <

          p>
          OK, now compose a poem in iambic pentameter, hundreds of pages long, in your head.  Ready go.  Pretty amazing stuff, and great for high school reading because of the raunchy parts.

          • Wow. It’s amazing stuff, and Milton clearly deserves to be in the canon, but he’s just not my cup of tea – not yet anyway. I had an English prof who said she couldn’t enjoy William Faulkner until she was in her forties, so who knows what I’ll think of Milton in 20 years?

            <

            p>
            What it really boils down to is that I just like using Animal House to cooberate my positions.

            • The three movies I have on VHS and refuse to discard, even though I no longer have a VCR.

        • I’m serious. Until you do, Milton will seem like a great wall of unrelieved text, but if you read him aloud, you find that the rhythm of the words is marvellous, even sensual. 

          <

          p>
          Samson Agonistes is smaller for the faint-hearted.

  9. (various links omitted)

    <

    p>

    Did you hear about Anne Coulter’s speech this afternoon attacking John? A friend just forwarded me the video and it’s one of the worst moments in American politics I’ve seen.

    I can’t bring myself to even repeat her comments. Her shameless display of bigotry is so outrageous you actually have to see for yourself to believe it.

    This is just a taste of the filth that the right-wing machine is gearing up to throw at us. And now that it’s begun, we have a choice: Do we sit back, or do we fight back?

    <

    p>
    … and there follows a pitch to try to raise $100,000 of “Coulter cash.”

    • but only if the left steps up.

      <

      p>
      If every Coulter TV appearance were “Sinclaired” from now on, she’d be DOA. Just think of these words together: Corporate media buyer. Coulter. Faggot. Rinse and repeat. You can just picture the perm tightening at the strategy meeting. In two weeks or less, Manny would never be seen on TV again.

    • Last I heard, press releases and statements were completely free (ok, 3 cents for the paper).  Gosh, I am so impressed with Edwards.  You know, Coulter chose her target well.  She (or her pimps) saw how he folded under Donohue & Malkin.  Guess they thought the time was ripe to bend that spine into full pretzel position.  I’ll wait until news time tomorrow morning to be sure, but if all Edwards can do is beg for cash in response, I’d say Coulter’s pimps guaged correctly.

  10. …probably not.  He probably won’t even acknowledge the endorsement.  I wouldn’t, if I were he.

    <

    p>
    The long response is, why are self-described “progressives” giving so much time to villifying Andy Coulter?  Doing so only allows her–or is it him? (Coulter appears to be the RuPaul of the conservative set)–to laugh all the way to the bank, and villification by progressives only feeds the conservatives’ siege mentality.

    <

    p>
    Some things are best left ignored.  Or laughed at.

  11. John Edwards is a married straight man

    <

    p>
    Ann Coulter called him a faggot

    <

    p>
    I know you are all falling over yourself with this but come on

    <

    p>
    The Academy award for Movie of the year has Matt Damon calling people faggots and homos for the first 1/2 hour

    <

    p>
    Give me a freaking break

    • ….a “the term appeared in a recent academy award winning movie defense”?????

      <

      p>
      Your statement is ridiculous. 

      <

      p>
      Coulter is not a fictional movie character.  She is a political force who can be called to task for her actions and statements.

    • has nothing to do with how offensive Coulter’s comment was.

      <

      p>
      Do you get that? 

      <

      p>
      She’s treated by the media as a credible commentator, for God’s sake, and she’s using the equivalent of the n-word in a televised speech. 

      <

      p>
      And yes, it matters who’s using it and what the intent behind it is.  Dave Chapelle tossing around the n-word is a lot different than Ann Coulter doing it.

      <

      p>
      Do you get that?

      • The homophobia was only there to give it a little extra charge. The attack on the masculinity of male Democratic candidates has been relentless.

        • …with this statement:

          <

          p>
          The homophobia was only there to give it a little extra charge.

          <

          p>
          The gay slur was the point.  “If you’re not masculine you must be gay or vice versa”

          <

          p>
          There was nothing marginal about her choice of words.  It was very carefully chosen and couched in a context (“if you use the wore faggot you have to go to rehab”) that was a clear recent cultural homophobic episode.

          • I’m essentially repeating a point Digby (Hullabaloo) and Somerby (Daily Howler) have been making for a while. Glenn Greenwald has the most thorough exposition of it I’ve seen here.

    • While I didn’t see the movie, from what I know about it, Matt Damon’s character wasn’t supposed to be a ‘good guy.’ I’m pretty sure he was in cahoots with the mob. Plus, he’s supposed to be a representation of a person at the time, and guys from Southie in the 80s probably did use that word.

      <

      p>
      Just because it’s used in a movie, doesn’t make it an acceptable word. Same with Edward Norton’s character in American History X (I think that’s the name of the movie) who was a neo-nazi racist, using the N word… the use of that word was to make a point – that he wasn’t such a great guy, at least during the time that he said it or things similar to it.

    • …let’s get something straight.  The movie probably doesn’t have Matt Damon calling people faggots and homos.  The move probably has Matt Damon’s character calling people faggots and homos.  Are you really too dense to understand the difference between an actor and the character he or she is portraying?

      <

      p>
      If you are unable to distinguish between the two, give it up.

  12. This isn’t a defense

    <

    p>
    Culture is culture

    <

    p>
    Everything to you is a hate crime and hate speech

  13. Rudy McRomney decided to distance himself from the Coulter chucklefest.

    <

    p>
    I think that Glenn Greenwald has a good take  on it:

    <

    p>

    She is the face of what the hard-core Republican Party has become, particularly during the Bush presidency. That is why she holds the position she holds in that movement. That’s why Mitt Romney was giddy with glee when her name passed his lips. He knows that her endorsement is valuable precisely because she holds great sway within the party, and she holds great sway because the hard-core party faithful consider her a hero for expressing the thoughts which they themselves believe but which other, less courageous Republican figures are afraid to express.

  14. It’s all bullshit.

    <

    p>
    I’m quite convinced that if you had to eat a baby to become President, Mitt Romney would ask for some barbecue sauce.

  15. Of course she is

    <

    p>
    Faggot will never be quated with the n-word

    <

    p>
    That is just wishful thinking on your bigoted part

    <

    p>
    GET OVER IT

    <

    p>
    Yeah Matt Damon is the bad guy, tell yourself that when you are laughing along with him and Leo and praising Marty for his fine work

    <

    p>
    Get over yourself

    • …it’s all the same to you Republicans.  Even “mackerel snapper.”

      <

      p>
      It’s surprising that “Kraut” isn’t used more often among Republicans.

      <

      p>
      Then again, maybe it is.

      <

      p>
      I’d go into some of the other terms I learned that Republicans use for gay people while posting on FreieRepublicaner.com, but I’d be banned.

      <

      p>
      /sarcasm

  16. But the New York Times reported that she responded, in an e-mail, “C’mon, it was a joke. I would never insult gays by suggesting that they are like John Edwards. That would be mean.”

    <

    p>
    During a question-and-answer session, Coulter referred back to the issue of gays by alluding to the bid for the Republican presidential nomination being made by former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney.

    <

    p>
    “I do want to point out one thing that has been driving me crazy with the media — how they keep describing Mitt Romney’s position as being pro-gays, and that’s going to upset the right wingers,” she said. “Well, you know, screw you! I’m not anti-gay. We’re against gay marriage. I don’t want gays to be discriminated against.”

    <

    p>
    She added, “I don’t know why all gays aren’t Republican. I think we have the pro-gay positions, which is anti-crime and for tax cuts. Gays make a lot of money and they’re victims of crime. No, they are! They should be with us.”

    <

    p>
    A spokesman for Romney called Coulter’s use of the slur “offensive.”

    • ….Coulter’s “HUMOR” if that is your inclination.  But those of us he view her a a money grubbing political opportunist who trades off the intollerance of those who support her are justified in our position.

      <

      p>
      Gays make a lot of money and they’re victims of crime. No, they are! They should be with us.”

      <

      p>
      For instance, if you don’t understand that the above statement is blatantly insulting you’re not likely to understand why people might be offended.  If you do understand how it’s offensive you are mocking those who are offended.

      <

      p>
      You are either delightfully ignorant or intentionally inflamatory.  The former is initially benign but if it best describes you the problem is that you persist in your “ignorance” which by definition makes you the latter.

      <

      p>
      End result, you drink Coulter Kool-Aid.  She is a bottom feeder and you are her willing lunch. 

    • “We’re against gay marriage. I don’t want gays to be discriminated against.”

      <

      p>
      Reversing herself in the same paragraph. Multiple Choice Mitt must be proud.

  17. You are just way too uptight

    <

    p>
    Your rose colored world doesn’t and will never exist

    • ….mean the world where marriage equality has already made inroads both domestically and abroad and where people enjoy the freedom to criticize those given a national platform whose comments they find morally and socially repugnant and reasonably expect the mainstream media to cover the issue and for those in our political system who are meant to be the benefactors of these comments to repudiate them publicly?

      <

      p>
      Seems to me that you’re the one wearing the rose colored glasses.  The one’s that let you see a world where blatant homophobia in the political arena is still acceptable. 

      <

      p>
      Better be careful though, if you’re wearing pink glasses people might think you’re gay.  You wouldn’t want that, would you?

      • The world where gay marriage has been overwhelmingly defeated by democrats and republicans and the courts who find no reason to change an institution that has enormous benefits for society

        • ….MA, NJ, CT, and VT exist don’t they.  The CA legilature has no problem passing a marriage equality bill even if the Gov. won’t sign it.  NY and RI can’t be that far behind.  So my glass might be half full but your glass is delusional.

          • …ending discrimination against marriage by same-sex couples, was nominated by Republican governors.  They were, of course, confirmed by a largely Democratic advisory council, but still, they were nominated by Republican governors.

            <

            p>
            I quite frankly doubt that Goldridge would have been decided as it had been, were it not for the fact that the Chief Justice, Margaret Marshall, had been raised in South Africa, and had witnessed Apartheid first hand.

  18. Saying the world would be better off if the Vice President was asassinated?

    <

    p>
    I suppose you say that’s not a vile thing to say.

    • It doesn’t help your point to just make up lies. Maher said:

      <

      p>
      “But I have zero doubt that if Dick Cheney was not in power, people wouldn’t be dying needlessly tomorrow.”

      <

      p>
      and

      <

      p>
      “I’m just saying if he did die, other people, more people would live. That’s a fact.”

      <

      p>
      If Bush and Cheney had not sent troops to Iraq, there would be more Americans alive today. Sounds better to me, although that is not what Maher said.

    • …stated, that is not what he said.  But even if it were it is not comparable.  Ann Coulter can insult John Edwards all the live long day for all I care.  She can even suggest that he should be put out of his misery.  The issue was the gay epithet.

    • eliminationist quotes straight, here’s one by Ann Coulter at last years CPAC:

      <

      p>

      Then came questions. A young woman asked Coulter to describe the most difficult ethical decision she ever made. “There was one time I had a shot at Bill Clinton,” Coulter said.

      <

      p>
      Here’s Ann again at CPAC, 2002:

      <

      p>

      “We need to execute people like John Walker in order to physically intimidate liberals, by making them realize that they can be killed, too. Otherwise, they will turn out to be outright traitors.”

       

      <

      p>
      These quotes were made by a keynote speaker at CPAC, where GOP presidential hopefuls like Mitt go to get their cred.

      <

      p>
      There’s a whole rundown of assorted wingnut death threats against liberals here.

      <

      p>
      But yeah, as one ‘moderate’ putz commenter mentioned the other day  on this site, some of the local liberals here seem awfully “unhinged”, especially towards Mitt. Really.

Archives