CNN disses Coulter, or is it the opposite?

Yesterday, CNN booked Ann Coulter to appear on Paula Zahn's show at 8 p.m. (The only reason I could ever think of to watch Zahn's show.) The network promoted the appearance in the afternoon, and I decided to TiVo it to see what Coulter had to say.

Of course, Coulter failed to appear, which probably was wise on her part, and the part of CNN. I would love to find out the real story there - did she actually cancel, or did CNN tell her "thanks but no thanks."

I'm already tired of hearing of the coverage about this. Yes, I know - two days ago I was complaining about a lack of coverage on her comment, and today I'm complaining about the huge amount of coverage. But, I didn't think there would be endless debate about it, and there has been.

What I specifically meant by bemoaning the lack of coverage was that it seemed like news organizations were burying the story. The proof is in the pudding - many did. This is news for two reasons: 1. She called John Edwards a "faggot", and 2. Moments before, she was introduced by Mitt Romney. So yes, this is news more than some bigot on the street yelling at two men walking arm-in-arm down the street.

Of course I support Coulter's First Amendment right to be a bigot (the downside of our Constitution, but I'm not for censorship), but this is a woman that Republicans routinely get behind because she has a legion of sheep who follow her and believe her every word. Oh, and she sells lots of books. And she's better looking (arguably) than Rush Limbaugh. So, this is a person who rubs elbows with top Republicans. And that is why her comments are news.

I was happy to see several Republican presidential candidates condemn her remarks.

What annoys me is that the media plays right into her hands - she does this to sell books. And she's probably laughing all the way to the bank.

The best defense against Coulter's screeds are to ignore her. Nothing would devastate her more than irrelevance. As much as I despise her, she's relevant because when she says something, the morons with microphones run up to her and hang on her every word.

I wonder when she'll next be on the Today Show? We've got an election coming up - no way she's on the sidelines, unless she chooses to be. (Could we ever get that lucky?) Hey, there's always Faux News Channel, and there's always room for one more purveyor of hate on that staff.

Almost equally damning were Bill Maher's comments on his HBO show last Friday evening. Bill's a radical liberal who makes me look conservative. I listen to him, but I always take his comments at face value. He can be funny, witty and offensive all in one sentence.

Maher had this to say about Vice President Cheney's brush with terrorism in Afghanistan, when a suicide bomber unsuccessfully tried to drive a car bomb into the military base where he was staying. Cheney came away from the incident unharmed, to the relief of... most. Maher wasn't one of them.

On his show, this is what Maher said:

"I have no doubt that if Dick Cheney was not in power, people wouldn't be dying needlessly tomorrow." (The audience applauds this line). He then went on to say: "I'm just saying if he did die, other people, more people would live, That's a fact." [Emphasis Maher's]

Stupid and inexcusable, without equivocation.

I've said this many times, including to people who have sent me stupid e-mail forwards about the death of President Bush. NOT funny, under any circumstances. As much as I despise Bush and Cheney, jokes like this are not only inappropriate, they are outrageous and if someone is not careful when making them, they're illegal. (And they should be.)

It's high time that Maher and Coulter are treated like the people they are - far left and far right ideologues, respectively, who aren't worthy of our attention.

Although, I don't put Maher in the same category as Coulter, offensive as his remark about Cheney was.

If you look back on the history of what Coulter has said, her reputation is far worse. But, in the end, who cares? As if a scorecard of Maher vs. Coulter would accomplish anything. But, Coulter's comments about the 9-11 widows enshrines her in the Hate Hall of Fame, if there is one, somewhere. (Far, faaaarrrrr south, maybe?)

I will add one other thought, though. If I had come up with a reason as to why Coulter seems to be getting most of the negative press between the two, I'd say it's because she used an offensive term against a whole group of people; millions of people, in fact.

One more thought - is it obvious to anyone else that homosexuals are the last major group that it's socially acceptable (in some circles, that is, to the right of center) to discriminate against? The Republican Party has and is doing all it can to deny homosexuals the rights they deserve - civil unions my ass. They deserve the right to marry just as heterosexuals do. Period.

Can you imagine how much worse this outcry would have been had Coulter gotten up on stage and called Barack Obama a "nigger"? Um, she may not have gotten out of D.C. alive. Or, what if she called Joe Lieberman a "kike"? Both of those scenarios would have resulted in Coulter being much more ostracized than she is now. And rightfully so. (And can anyone honestly believe she wouldn't utter such remarks? Really, it's only a matter of time with this bigot. Okay, wait - Lieberman supports the War in Iraq - he's safe.)

But, she deserves much more scorn than she's getting for using a hate word toward someone she disagrees with politically. Censorship? No. Ridicule? I'll take two orders, with a side of laughter that people even pay attention to her at all.

How about we just all ignore her?

Fat chance.

Clownin' on Coulter; Ducks in a barrel next

I'm really through with going off about Ann Coulter.

Okay, if you believe that, you'll also believe that I'm running for president in 2008. Please send money.

Seriously though, she's so far beyond even being worthy of hatred. I'm now convinced there's something very mentally wrong with her. (Some of you might think I'm a little slow on the uptake.)

Maybe Coulter and Britney should be sentenced to go away for a long, long time. I've got an idea - send them both to the South Pole to watch the glaciers melt. What's the difference? They're both going to be very, very lonely people when they get older anyway. And if they're not, it'll just be because they have money, or at least enough money to hoodwink some unlucky soul to spend any time with either one of them.

At any rate, my outrage at Coulter has achieved a sort of numbness. I'm actually now grateful for her, because she serves as an effective benchmark for the normal, sane people walking the planet.

For example - if there's someone out there who's a conservative, and maybe even a fringe conservative, a barometer of the craziness could go something like this:

"Yes, I know Conservative So-and-So is a little out there, but is he/she Ann Coulter crazy?"

Coulter's latest publicity stunt to make headlines sounds like something out of MTV's The Real World. Yesterday, at the annual Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC), Coulter called Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards a "faggot."

"I was going to comment on John Edwards," she told conference attendees, "but it turns out you have to go into rehab if you say the word faggot."

What's more, only moments before her comments, she was introduced by presidential candidate Mitt Romney. Oops.

The only question now is, will she be marginalized by the right, and the candidates who have cozied up to her?

I seriously doubt it.

Her résumé of hate is long, sparkling and distinguished, if you're a fan of the hate mongering far right. Let's take a look at her checklist, shall we?

● Questioning the legitimacy of former Georgia Senator Max Cleland's war wounds while serving in Vietnam. (He lost three limbs)

● Accusing 9-11 widows of "enjoying their husband's deaths"

● Calling liberals "Godless" people "Who hate America"

● Questioning the legitimacy 2004 Democratic Presidential Nominee John Kerry's three purple hearts

● Accusing former President Bill Clinton of a whole host of crimes, for which he was never changed or convicted

● Stating that any country responsible for 9-11 should be bombed and their people converted to Christianity

● Saying this of the New York Times during an interview: "My only regret with Timothy McVeigh is he did not go to the New York Times Building"

● Saying anyone who doesn't "support the troops" "hates America"

● Calling 2008 Presidential Candidate John Edwards a "faggot"

I wonder what could be next?

What's more, I wonder what she could possibly say to make her irrelevant and ignored? Fat chance of that happening.

As long as there are young, horny neoconservative men who will vote for a Republican at any cost, Coulter will always have a ready-made audience who will snap up her books and fawn over her every word.

The only way you can affect someone like Coulter is to put your money where your mouth is and not buy her books. As long as she has an audience, she will continue to pimp this made for headlines hate to sell books and make money.

I thank God that my country has free speech, but Coulter is the downside to that free speech. I guess we have to live with tolerating the intolerance, but that doesn't mean I have to like it.

As of 3 p.m. today, I haven't heard or read of any Republican presidential candidate condemning Coulter's remarks. We'll see how this one plays out.

UPDATE:
McCain, Romney and Giuliani have all condemned Coulter - I just read it in a story on the New York Times Website. However, nothing on AP's Website, and nothing from the New York Times in today's story about the CPAC conference. The Washington Post's story today about the CPAC conference buried any reference to Coulter's comment, putting it in paragraph seven, but the paper did not print the word "faggot." The Times only ran a story about Coulter's remark when McCain, Romney and Giuliani spoke out against her. By the way, the Post and Times are typically accused of being two of the most liberal papers in the country.

One final note ~ not one of the Republican candidates' Websites has any reference to Coulter whatsoever, so this is anything but a strong condemnation.

I read this on another blog this morning, and it about sums it up:

John Edwards and John Kerry stated the truth, that Mary Cheney is a lesbian (to
point out the GOP's
hypocrisy on gay marriage), and all hell breaks loose.

Coulter calls Edwards a
faggot...

[crickets]