Ann Coulter thinks John Edwards is gay?

I don’t even know where to start with this one, so we’ll just let her speak for herself.

She was addressing the American Conservative Union PAC on Friday, and while I was skimming past CSPAN, I saw part of the meeting, but turned it off because I hadn’t taken any Zantac that morning. Turns out I should have stayed tuned for this doozy.

Can’t wait to see whether this attracts even a fraction of the media attention that John Kerry got for his attempt at humor before the last election. This was far more virulent, and could rightfully be labeled as hate-speech.

0 Responses

  1. Now, this is the politics of personal destruction. I’m glad that she said it. I’m hoping that America hears it. Then hopefully she can go the way of the 70’s group the Hues Corporation, a one hit wonder that hasn’t been heard from since.

    I think that the problem is that she doesn’t have any ideas. None. America isn’t buying the neocon agenda any more. She isn’t getting booked for all of the talk shows all of the time any more. I can’t remember when I was her last on a Sunday morning or evening talk show. It has been months. Her latest book didn’t clean up like her last 2 or 3.

    Let’s look at the list of Democrats that she has called gay – Clinton, Kerry and Edwards to my count. Fantastic. Any prove? Any? Nada.

    She is one of the reasons I hate politics.

  2. Ann Coulter’s comments were cheered and aplauded by the attendees. (I’ve heard the audio, so I can’t be fooled by Michele Malkin et. al.)

    This is hardly surprising, given that homophobia, racism, and Christian supremacy are core values for the right wing fringe represented by that conference.

    The phony condemnations by rightists who have promoted the very value system behind Coulter’s comments are hypocritical.

    Today, the cheezy local news channel in NYC, played up Coulter by refering to her as “politically incorrect” instead of as a bigot. The right-wing bias in the media is so fanatical.

  3. She didn’t mean homosexual. she meant someone who has weasel type tendencies that lacks integrity. edwards is a personal injury lawyer. he got rich by suing physicians with allegations that aren’t rooted in science. he’s a snake oil salesman. he’s obviously not gay. he’s married to a woman.

  4. Interesting justification. I can’t find that definition for “faggot” anywhere in any dictionary, although if you can find it, I’d be happy to see it. I hope you aren’t saying that “person who has weasel type tendencies and lacks integrity” equals faggot.

    She may dislike him. Fair enough. I’m undecided and I know and respect many others who also dislike him. But let’s make fair criticisms and drop the playground name-calling.

    Additionally, she has a past track record of directly claiming, or indirectly implying, that people she doesn’t like are homosexuals. Given that track record, and the current cultural context of her records, I’m sure she meant to say that he was homosexual. Because in her mind, that was one of the worst things that she could say.

    I guess I should have titled my post “Ann Coulter hates gay people and John Edwards.”

  5. And as for his legal career, I haven’t reviewed all of his cases. I have neither the time nor the interest. Of the three cases referenced here at Wikipedia though,

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_edwards#Legal_career

    I’d have to say that winning a case against a doctor who prescribed an overdose of a medication sounds reasonably based in science.

    I’d say that any cerebral palsy cases are problematic in that all of the factors that go into the development of CP are not known.

    I’d say that the victory over the pool drain cover manufacturer who continued to make the same product after 12 prior lawsuits had been brought on similar grounds and whose product played a key role in the disemboweling of a young girl…. well that suit was probably reasonably based in science (at least in physics, and biology, if not in medicine).

  6. While NORTH Americans are getting so busy in those twin parties Republicans and Democrats’ gossipings, we are getting killed in Colombia by The paramilitary goverment of Alvaro Uribe, and your media does not even mention the fact that many colombian Uribist congress men are in prison now because of their participation in the paramilitary crimes, and all for commiting many of their crimes, they have used the north american money of PLAN COLOMBIA. why don’t you get serious about your country’s participation in the terrorism of state in Colombia?

  7. Thanks for the thoughts, although I’m not quite sure how they are relevant to anything in this post or these responses. We have enough trouble getting our media to pay attention to crimes of state going on within our own borders. Do you really think that we’d have any luck getting them to address the issues you speak of? I’d love that that were the case.

  8. Nelson –

    I did a show on Columbia and Coca-Cola back in June of last year. I had a guest commentary about torture and SMU library here.  Dr. Andrew mentioned the problems in Columbia. 

    Thanks for your comments. I appreciate the problems in your country.  First, we need to take back the White House.  Then we need a large majority in the House and Senate then we can change foreign policy.  Give us 2 more years.  With a military take over here in the US we will need 2 years before we can help you.

  9. I’m just curious why it is now okay to call someone a B***h, especially a woman, but there is major uproar regarding calling someone a F****t. I don’t support the use of either term, but shouldn’t we be outraged by all the degrading terms used against genders, races, and sexual orientation?

  10. Curious –

    Thanks for your comments.

    You, of course, are correct. I think that calling a woman a B***h is wrong. Let me say this in big letters – WRONG. F****t is also wrong.

    Thanks again.

  11. E. is right. It’s NOT right to call a woman a B****. I didn’t call her one. John Edwards didn’t call her one. I’m pretty sure Errington Thompson didn’t call her one.

    And while there may be many bloggers and posters who use such trashy, derogatory language on their websites, that’s a bit of a different venue than a nationally televised conference on CSPAN.

    She has been given a prominent soapbox from which to speak, and with that privilege comes responsibility.

Subscribe for updates!
ABOUT AUTHOR
Errington C. Thompson, MD

Dr. Thompson is a surgeon, scholar, full-time sports fan and part-time political activist. He is active in a number of community projects and initiatives. Through medicine, he strives to improve the physical health of all he treats.

Books

A Letter to America

The Thirteeneth Juror

Where is The Outrage Topics
Categories
FOLLOW ME ON