GOP Hypocrites Toss Coulter Under the Bus

I know she wouldn't do it for me. I hardly feel like doing it for her. But right is right and so is wrong, and I can't keep silent when a fellow political pundit—albeit a slanderous, treasonous liar like Ann Coulter—gets Sister Souljahed by professional hypocrites John McCain, Mitt Romney and Rudy Giuliani.

This morning's New York Times has the story:

Speaking at the Conservative Political Action Conference before an overflow crowd on Friday, Ms. Coulter said, “I was going to have a few comments on the other Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards, but it turns out you have to go into rehab if you use the word ‘faggot,’ so I — so kind of an impasse, can’t really talk about Edwards.”
[…]
Ms. Coulter, asked for a reaction to the Republican criticism, said in an e-mail message: “C’mon, it was a joke. I would never insult gays by suggesting that they are like John Edwards. That would be mean.”

Memo to Ann: I know Ted Rall. Ted Rall is a friend of mine. I am Ted Rall. You will never be as funny as Ted Rall. So stop trying.
After liberal bloggers raised hell, strategists for three major GOP presidential candidates made a tactical decision to denounce her:

Of the major Republican candidates, only Mr. McCain did not attend, but he denounced her remarks on Saturday morning. “The comments were wildly inappropriate,” said his spokesman, Brian Jones.
Mr. Giuliani said, “The comments were completely inappropriate and there should be no place for such name-calling in political debate.”
Kevin Madden, a spokesman for Mr. Romney, said: “It was an offensive remark. Governor Romney believes all people should be treated with dignity and respect.”

Where were Romney, McCain and Giuliani since 9/11? For the worse part of six years Coulter has "joked" about bombing The New York Times building, equated Democrats with Al Qaeda terrorists and suggested that liberals ought to be chucked into internment camps. Along with other "mainstream" Republicans, these three turds were happy to remain silent while Coulter played the part of the rabid attack dog of the right, an I.R.A. to their Sinn Fein.
Now that the political climate has changed, however, they're throwing her under the bus. How convenient. How tacky.
Calling John Edwards (who, if the election were held today, I would support with my vote) a "faggot" isn't that a big deal. Yes, it's an ugly word. But so is "asshole"—and I've referred to Bush as such at public gatherings without facing a beatdown. (I've also deployed other epithets like "murderer" and "idiot.") If Edwards were gay, I'd feel differently about it.
A right-wing reader wrote recently to ask why I suddenly seemed so moderate after years of being a rabid left-wing com-symp (I can't remember the other stuff). I replied that I hadn't changed—that the country had.
The same thing is true for Coulter. She hasn't changed. She's always been a lousy writer, a humorless wannabe satirist and a shrill attack poodle of the Republican right. Her erstwhile supporters are deserting her now that the polls have flipped—but I can't forget all the applause she got before. Not to mention the front-page suckuppery in Time magazine and the rest of the "liberal" mainstream press.

Comments Invited

I received this email this morning:

How are you? 
I must admit it's been a long time since I read your column (and news in general come to think of it). I used to be very interested in world politics and news, but found that I only got more frustrated the more 'news' I read. I love your work (editorials, never got around to your other work, so many things to read, so little time, etc). I just happened to be iddly sitting at the pc tonight, finishing a glass of beer, and thought 'hey, I miss Rall's stuff, let's check it out'. And I did. 
Now, either I'm becoming more dumb as days go by, or something in your writing style changed. 
Let me explain: I really do think I'm slightly above average when it comes to reading, understanding, and just generally being on the level when I read things. I'm not saying I'm brilliant or anything, but usually, I believe I understand an author's point of view well enough. But I have to say, your last three pieces (I read them on Yahoo, the vegetarian thing, the pretzel, etc), I really cannot follow you! I'm reading, and I'm sitting at my pc thinking "Man, I must've really gotten dumb in the last months or so, because Rall, my favorite anti-republican, anti-conservative --I'm Canadian-- doesn't make any sense any more!". I really, really didn't get the vegan thing... What are you going on about? Damn man, I'm not getting you! I know you're a class apart from that nutcase Coulter, but I think you need to make your writing (and your point in general) a bit easier to follow. Seriously. Americans now have this wonderful show "Are you smarter than a 5 year old", and honestly, the only country in the world where that could happen is the U.S. Now, I can -usually- follow you, but now, you've lost me, and I'm Canadian! So I guess what I saying is this: for the sakes of Democrats (and by proxy Liberals in Canada) make you editorials count, and make 'em easier to understand! 
I know, I know, this might not be making a lot of sense, but I really 'feel' like something has changed in the way you write your stuff. Reeves? Yes, I expect him to be long-winded and relatively bizzaro, but you, I peg you as the People's man... (I hope you won't be insulted by this statement)... You need to make a difference, and that means reaching people. I have a hard time following you (or at any rate your last 3 pieces) and I'm afraid that only helps the 'enemy'... We need a good, level-headed, educated person like you writing good pieces exposing the rot going on in North America, but you need to be 'user-friendly'. It's the only way I can put it. I'm sure if I go back to your pieces tomorrow, read them again, stop, think, it'll be clear as day, but I'm not sure the average person will go through this exercise... 
 
Peace, and I hope this makes a modicum of sense to you... 
 
E.L. 
Canada 

Here's my reply:

Hi E.L.,

I appreciate what you're saying. I've always believed in writing in an accessible style. Writing, after all, is about communication. Showing off your ten-cent vocabulary words isn't the point. The point is to express an idea as easily and simply as possible in the hope of stimulating discussion (and maybe, possible, you never know...change?).

This week's column about vegetarianism attempted to express my distaste, not for vegetarians, but for the kind of sloppy thinking that justifies hurting other living things simply because they're different than we are. I'm sorry it fell short of what you've come to expect from me. But I hope you'll keep reading!

Best,
Ted

So, how about it? Is E.L. right or wrong? Please post a comment. I'll be reading them and maybe even--you never know--reacting!

Sorry, No Hate Mail

I don't get any anymore. Gee, I wonder why.

On the other hand, Jennifer had this to say:

When I saw the title of this week's column, the first connection I made was to the "unwomen" in Margaret Atwood's The Handmaid's Tale. However, as I read your column, I realized my mistake. You make some key points about how various ethnic groups are treated, but I was disappointed that you did not include women as unpersons.

Enlightened writer that you are, I'm sure you're aware of how women are routinely marginalized in the media, which portray doctored-up images of women (e.g., Katie Couric minus ten pounds) or women who fall far outside the norm (models, actresses), propagates glib generalizations about "security moms", relegates "women's issues" such as athletic anorexia to the New York Times Styles section, tokenizes the few who make it almost to the top (Nancy Pelosi, Carly Fiorino); and then there are the medical studies that test on males first, even for problems such as Rett Syndrome, which primarily affects females ... I could go on ad nauseam.

Nowhere are women represented in a way that accepts us as whole humans rather than a one-off version of men. Never are our concerns treated as human concerns. Always we are treated as the exception, the strident bitch, the me-too whiner.

If we are elided even from your column, then we truly are unpersons.

Sincerely,
Jennifer

PS - Don't forget the elderly, and also the children about whose interests many claim to care, but look at the crappy world we're leaving for them.

I replied that she was absolutely right. One could write a (long) book on the topic of this week's column, which barely scratches the surface of a topic with enormous import.

Obama's First Gaffe



Hillary Clinton should be denied the presidency for voting like a neo-fascist: for the Iraq war, for the Afghan war, for the USA-Patriot Act (twice). Barack Obama, on the other hand, should be denied for being a pussy.

During a campaign stop in Iowa over the weekend, the Illinois senator told a crowd: "We now have spent 400 billion dollars and have seen over 3,000 of the bravest young Americans wasted."

Fair enough. Except it's more than $400 billion. And he forgot the Iraqis.

Then he apologized for his "slip of the tongue."

Here, let me help: Those lives were wasted. Every last one of them. They all died for nothing. Well, they died for lies. Their mission made things worse, not better--both for America and for Iraq. And it's a national outrage.

The sooner people start accepting the truth, that these sacrifices are all in vain, the sooner we'll stop throwing even more lives away on an illegal, immoral and unwinnable endeavor.

Terrorists

The above photo from the front page of today's New York Times tells more than just the story of, as the caption reads, "An Iraqi man" who "comforted his mother, who collapsed yesterday after he was questioned by American soldiers under a new security plan for Baghdad."

"Questioned"? Note the plastic handcuff still on his left wrist, obviously cut to allow him to tend to his mother.

I couldn't help notice the fact that these asshole soldiers are wearing their boots inside this Iraqi house. We've occupied Afghanistan for six years, Iraq for four, and our troops still think it's OK to wear shoes inside? It's not just Muslim Culture 101--taking your shoes off at the door is standard in most countries. Is there actually not one single Army officer who pays attention to local sensibilities and teaches local mores to their men?

Look at this guy's face. If I was pro-American before, I'd sign up for the local insurgency the second these automatic weapon-toting shitkickers violated my home and terrorized my mother.

Back and Forth



I Fisk a letter from one Stephen, who says he's a "long-time reader":

I'm a college student and while I'm not really religious I have a generally conservative political stance; somewhat like a guleini. Although I often disagree with you - - you should know that I greatly respect your opinion.
Being critical of America is fine -- in many ways its an American tradition. The biggest problem that people like me [average, middle-American, good ole' boy] have with people like you is that you never seem to "go after" the terrorists and insurgents the same way.

There are three reasons you might think that. First, I try not replicate sentiments I hear widely expressed. For instance, I don't write about how disgusted I am by child molesters because, well, duh. That's well covered in the media. I agree, but I have nothing to add to the subject. Nodding in assent makes for boring writing.

Second, you have to separate "terrorists" from the insurgents fighting off occupiers in Afghanistan and Iraq. The former are loathesome. The latter are to be admired, for they are patriots. There may be times when insurgents become terrorists. However, merely being an insurgent does not make one a terrorist, no matter how often Bush and Fox News claim otherwise.

Third, I am a million times more concerned about the shortcomings of the American people, their system of government and their political leaders than those of other countries. I live here, not there, and there's a lot more I can do about what goes on here in the United States. Did I think the Muslims who burned embassies over the Danish Mohammed cartoons were idiots. Yes, obviously, and I said so when asked. But they worry me a lot less than people who shoot abortion doctors.

For instance, you hate the whole Bush wire-tapping thing (and so do I). However, if you love civil liberties so much, wouldn't you be even more pissed off about what the North Koreans do to their people?

No. I wouldn't. Because liberation cannot be imposed from outside. Freedom will come to North Korea when the people there rise up and overthrow their oppressive dictatorship. What I think about North Korea's leaders is irrelevant. Besides, as far as I know, the regime there may well be very popular. On the other hand, as an American, I know enough about basic American values to know that listening in to our phone calls is un-American.

Or consider how much you hate discrimination ( I hate it too, I think its great you call the American government out when it crosses the line)... but if I was going to write about unfairness in the world I'd have to start with how women are treated in Islamic governments - and how Islamic governments deal with free speech and everything else.

See above. It would be great if women in oppressive Taliban-style regimes like Saudi Arabia and Pakistan (incidentally, close allies of the Bush Administration and the US) were to rebel and fight for equal rights. I would be very, very pleased if they did. But it won't change unless and until they do. Women's rights in Muslim countries is for women--and, well, for men--to decide there.

Also see above on the redundancy thing. Others have said it. Why repeat it over and over?

This is the editorial that I want you to write:
American Foreign policy: How Ted Rall would deal with terrorists that want to kill Ted Rall.

I've already written about how I would fight the war on terror in columns and books.

You wonder why Americans have been going down the same path since Reagan, and I'll tell you the answer.

WE HAVE NOT BEEN GIVEN A BETTER CHOICE. complaining and calling bush a killer is not a solution. I voted for Bush because he had the only plan, it wasn't a great plan but it was a plan, he said he'd fight the terrorist on their own crummy ground and that's what he tried to do.

I suspect you're right. Voters like their candidates to seem certain, and Democrats don't project that same arrogance. But it's one hell of a way to choose a president or a Congress.

I'll let you go, I know you're busy.
Thanks for taking the time to read my rant.
I may be just one guy - but I represent the thinking of millions.

Please consider writing the editorial I mentioned.

German Courts Issue Arrest Warrants for CIA Kidnapper-Torturers



Leave it to the Germans to call us to account for our evil actions. How we mighty have fallen.