Topic category: Other/General
Ann Coulter and John Edwards Embarrass Themselves
The bad news is that the Right's provocateuress, Ann Coulter, did it again: attracted attention in a counterproductive way, this time by suggesting in a vulgar way about John Edwards, former United States Senator, 2004 Democrat vice presidential candidate and current first-tier Democrat presidential aspirant, is gay.
The good news, for Ann, is that she is laughing all the way to the bank.
The bad news, for traditional family value advocates, is that Ann portrayed a traditional family value in a vulgar way, which is precisely what the San Francisco values folks want.
The good news for John is that he got to say that Ann should be ashamed.
"Ann Coulter's use of an anti-gay slur yesterday was un-American and indefensible. In America, we strive for equality and embrace diversity. The kind of hateful language she used has no place in political debate or our society at large.
"I believe it is our moral responsibility to speak out against that kind of bigotry and prejudice every time we encounter it."
But the bad news for John is that he has been tolerant of anti-Catholic bigotry and a comparison of his public statements starkly exposes that.
When it came to blogging and netroots coordinating, John hired two anti-Catholic bigots to promote his presidential candidacy.
When their bigotry was called to his attention, he kept them on instead of dismissing them (they later resigned) and issued this statement on February 8, 2007:
"The tone and the sentiment of some of Amanda Marcotte's and Melissa McEwan's posts personally offended me. It's not how I talk to people, and it's not how I expect the people who work for me to talk to people. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but that kind of intolerant language will not be permitted from anyone on my campaign, whether it's intended as satire, humor, or anything else. But I also believe in giving everyone a fair shake. I've talked to Amanda and Melissa; they have both assured me that it was never their intention to malign anyone's faith, and I take them at their word. We're beginning a great debate about the future of our country, and we can't let it be hijacked. It will take discipline, focus, and courage to build the America we believe in."
Isn't Ann entitled to her opinion?
Isn't Ann entitled to a fair shake?
Isn't Ann to be taken at her word?
What did Ann do?
Ann referred to John as a "faggot."
What had John's coordinators done?
“Writing on the Pandagon blogsite, December 26, 2006, Amanda Marcotte wrote that "the Catholic church is not about to let something like compassion for girls get in the way of using the state as an instrument to force women to bear more tithing Catholics." On October 9, 2006, she said that "the Pope’s gotta tell women who give birth to stillborns that their babies are cast into Satan’s maw." On the same day she wrote that "it’s going to be bad PR for the church, so you can sort of see why the Pope is dragging ass." And on June 14, 2006, she offered the following Q&A: "What if Mary had taken Plan B after the Lord filled her with his hot, white, sticky Holy Spirit," to which she replied, "You’d have to justify your misogyny with another ancient mythology."
“On November 21, 2006, Melissa McEwan said on AlterNet that "some of Christianity’s most prominent leaders—including the Pope—regularly speak out against gay tolerance." On November 1, 2006, on her blogspot Shakespeare’s Sister, she referred to President Bush’s "wingnut Christofascist base" when lashing out against religious conservatives. On February 21, 2006, she attacked religious conservatives again, this time saying, "What don’t you lousy motherf---ers understand about keeping your noses out of our britches, our beds, and our families?’ The very first entry under "Greatest Hits" on her website [where she bragged about being appointed to Edwards’ campaign] was titled, "On C---s". In her article she boasted that she is the "Queen C--- of F--k Mountain."
Astonishingly, John was much more upset by Ann using one bad word than he was by the blasphemous vileness of his chosen coordinators.
Thanks to Ann, that's now obvious.
Yes, Ann is being criticized by Republicans and Democrats alike for publicly using a derogatory gay slur in reference to John, and rightfully so.
Ann made the remark at the American Conservative Union's 2007 Political Action Conference. (In 2006, she unhelpfully used the word "ragheads.")
Amy Ridenour, president of the National Center for Public Policy Research, lamented: "We conservatives have enough trouble overcoming the false things that are said about us without paying for a platform upon which we shoot ourselves annually in the foot.."
Ann is not contrite: she said the remark was a joke and had her speech posted on her website with the comment, "I'm so ashamed, I can't stop laughing."
John already is using Ann's remark for fundraising purposes. His website includes a video of Ann and an appeal to supporters to raise $100,000 in so-called "Coulter Cash" for his campaign to "fight back against the politics of bigotry."
If John had dealt firmly with anti-Catholic bigotry, he would be much better able to pose as a person of principle instead of a rank opportunist.
Ironically, some good has come from Ann's vulgar remark: John's double standard is crystal clear.
Michael J. Gaynor
Biography - Michael J. Gaynor
Michael J. Gaynor has been practicing law in New York since 1973. A former partner at Fulton, Duncombe & Rowe and Gaynor & Bass, he is a solo practitioner admitted to practice in New York state and federal courts and an Association of the Bar of the City of New York member.
Gaynor graduated magna cum laude, with Honors in Social Science, from Hofstra University's New College, and received his J.D. degree from St. John's Law School, where he won the American Jurisprudence Award in Evidence and served as an editor of the Law Review and the St. Thomas More Institute for Legal Research. He wrote on the Pentagon Papers case for the Review and obscenity law for The Catholic Lawyer and edited the Law Review's commentary on significant developments in New York law.
The day after graduating, Gaynor joined the Fulton firm, where he focused on litigation and corporate law. In 1997 Gaynor and Emily Bass formed Gaynor & Bass and then conducted a general legal practice, emphasizing litigation, and represented corporations, individuals and a New York City labor union. Notably, Gaynor & Bass prevailed in the Second Circuit in a seminal copyright infringement case, Tasini v. New York Times, against newspaper and magazine publishers and Lexis-Nexis. The U.S. Supreme Court affirmed, 7 to 2, holding that the copyrights of freelance writers had been infringed when their work was put online without permission or compensation.
Gaynor currently contributes regularly to www.MichNews.com, www.RenewAmerica.com, www.WebCommentary.com, www.PostChronicle.com and www.therealitycheck.org and has contributed to many other websites. He has written extensively on political and religious issues, notably the Terry Schiavo case, the Duke "no rape" case, ACORN and canon law, and appeared as a guest on television and radio. He was acknowledged in Until Proven Innocent, by Stuart Taylor and KC Johnson, and Culture of Corruption, by Michelle Malkin. He appeared on "Your World With Cavuto" to promote an eBay boycott that he initiated and "The World Over With Raymond Arroyo" (EWTN) to discuss the legal implications of the Schiavo case. On October 22, 2008, Gaynor was the first to report that The New York Times had killed an Obama/ACORN expose on which a Times reporter had been working with ACORN whistleblower Anita MonCrief.
Gaynor's email address is firstname.lastname@example.org.