Is it possible in today’s instant-media politics to “love the sinner but not the sin?” At what point does a person’s worth become synonymous with his/her actions or words, especially if those actions or words become a political liability for anyone considered a friend or supporter? In today’s politics it seems that members of both political parties routinely rush to throw the proverbial baby out with the bathwater whenever someone speaks frankly but perhaps with little tact. Influential organizations, with media complicity, demand that politicians not only distance themselves from “inflammatory” or “intolerant” statements made by others, but they are further urged to personally condemn or malign the person who made the comments. In effect, political correctness today demands nothing less than a complete shunning of anyone whose friendship or support could be viewed as political baggage. Ambition trumps friendship, and popularity eschews loyalty.
Recent examples of this phenomenon illustrate the political danger presidential candidates face when someone they know and have publicly associated with does or says something controversial. Their perceived risk of being associated with a controversial figure or policy position almost immediately results in the candidates’ lemming-like dash to jump into the abyss of political correctness to preserve their popularity and appeal.
Unfortunately
Ann Coulter placed several 2008 Republican presidential candidates in an awkward position with her
controversial remarks at the 34
th annual
CPAC (Conservative Political Action Conference) on Friday. The candidates’ political views and personalities were overshadowed by the media focus on one sentence uttered by
Coulter and the efforts of top Republican 2008 presidential contenders Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney, and Senator John McCain to
distance themselves from her remark. If you missed it, during her speech to
CPAC Coulter made the following comment:
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.
Clearly, Ann
Coulter has a low opinion of Senator John Edwards, but the number of Republicans (and many Democrats as well) who hold similarly low opinions of Senator Edwards is legion.
Coulter expressed her sentiment in a forceful manner, leaving no doubt about her disdain for Senator Edwards as a politician and as a person. One could reasonably question her judgment in using a term that has been ascribed only one possible meaning in today’s politically correct climate. It can also be reasonably assumed that she intentionally used the term on such an austere occasion to gain publicity, as the analysis by
Right Wing News convincingly argues in the post titled, “Ann
Coulter's Juvenile Comment at
CPAC.”
Coulter, in manner ironically similar to
John Kerry after his derogatory comments toward the intelligence of U.S. Military personnel, explained that her remark was an attempt at humor, or in Kerry’s words, “a botched joke.” When asked about criticism of her comment,
Coulter stated, “C’
mon, it was a joke. I would never insult gays by suggesting that they are like John Edwards. That would be mean.”
Traditional liberal media outlets, including the Washington Post, who
defended Senator Kerry by immediately labeling his insult to U.S. troops in Iraq as nothing more than a botched joke, did not offer similar protective coverage to Ann
Coulter in this incident. There were no headlines in the Post softening
Coulter’s image with blind acceptance of her Kerry-
esque “it was a joke” explanation. On the contrary, she was universally condemned by the liberal media, and also by the leading Republican 2008 presidential candidates.
The following are the reactions of each candidate to
Coulter’s remark as reported by the
New York Times and
Fox News, respectively:
Rudy Giuliani- “The comments were completely inappropriate and there should be no place for such name-calling in political debate.”
Mitt Romney- (via a spokesperson) “It was an offensive remark. Governor Romney believes all people should be treated with dignity and respect.”
Senator McCain- “Wildly inappropriate.”
The larger question raised by the
Coulter flap is: what is the appropriate long-term response when someone who supports you does or says something controversial? Should Mitt Romney follow the advice of the liberal critics who demand that he refuse
Coulter’s campaign support? The difficulty with this situation is that
Coulter, though acerbic in delivery, happens to wield the most sarcastic pen in political punditry, and often provides valuable insight and political analysis couched in phrases no candidate or current office holder would dare to utter. Her remark about Edwards was inappropriate, particularly in a forum of candidates carrying the banner of the Republican Party. Yet as ill-advised as her attempt at humor was, it does not necessarily invalidate all of her past and future political analyses.
By nature politics is a controversial business. One cannot take a position without being excoriated by those holding opposing ideas, even if those opponents are in one’s own party. Should all Republican candidates shun
Coulter for one sentence in one speech? The
Clintons were wise to remain loyal to James
Carville and others within their party who spoke bluntly and controversially in much the same fashion as
Coulter. Much of the
Clintons’ electoral success can be directly attributed to
Carville’s strategies, demonstrating that even “flame throwers” have value beyond their publicity stunts.
Politics as a profession leaves little room for repentance, rehabilitation, or forgiveness, and the media appears determined to punish any candidate who gives any appearance of friendship with
Coulter. Attempts by the media to link the candidates personally to
Coulter began almost immediately, as the New York Times placed the following sentence directly beneath
Coulter’s sarcastic explanation of her intended joke: “At the conference, she said she was likely to support Mr. Romney.”
Apparently the liberal media took notice that
Romney won the CPAC straw poll and may be emerging as the preferred candidate among conservative Republicans. Liberal
bloggers adopted the strategy of creating the impression that since
Coulter officially endorsed Romney, he should be smeared with the stain of her allegedly anti-gay comment. The most egregious misrepresentation of Romney’s
Coulter connection can be found on the highly popular liberal blog
The Daily Kos in the post titled “
Coulter and the Candidates.” Daily
Kos contributor
MissLaura portrayed the incident as follows:
One of the conservatives whose support Romney drew, of course, was Ann
Coulter. The two spent some quality time together before she went onstage to call John Edwards a "faggot."
Can we therefore expect him to refuse to be further associated with someone like Ann Coulter, whose entire career as a prominent conservative is based on the notion that people who disagree with her should be treated with contempt, disrespect, and vituperation?
I'll be looking for him to refuse her support of his candidacy just any minute now.
Thus, according to “tolerant” liberals and Republicans infected with political correctness, if one makes a controversial comment, regardless of intent, that person should be jettisoned permanently. The comments submitted to this Daily
Kos post were likewise illustrative of the true nature of liberal tolerance. Readers were outraged by the above photo of Romney backstage PRIOR to
Coulter’s speech. Romney was vilified by one reader for “flashing his most cordial smile” at
Coulter, as if civility and personal kindness should never be directed toward those with whom one disagrees.
To the right you will see a photo of Nancy
Pelosi “flashing her most cordial smile” at President Bush despite having
said this of him in 2004: “Bush is an incompetent leader. In fact, he's not a leader. He's a person who has no judgment, no experience and no knowledge of the subjects that he has to decide
upon.” Hillary Clinton, in another flashed a very cordial smile to Vice President Cheney prior to taking her oath of office in the U.S. Senate, all while the very friendly Bill Clinton had his hand on the Vice President’s shoulder. These types of photos indicate nothing about the beliefs and policy views of the persons in the photos, they merely demonstrate that snubbing people and burning bridges win few friends and minimal influence in politics. I suppose the tolerant liberal approach to standing next to someone backstage in a green room must consist of glares, the silent treatment, or refusals to stand next to someone with differing views. Romney was obviously being gracious with a well known media figure, and there is nothing substantive to indicate any more or less than this, especially from one photograph.
For liberals, tolerance appears to be a precious commodity only extended to those who agree with them. The comparison between the media treatment of John Kerry and Ann
Coulter does not excuse or defend
Coulter’s remark, which was truly juvenile, but it does expand on what
Hugh Hewitt wrote about this incident. Hugh rightly pointed out that both the Democratic and Republican parties have individuals who embarrass them and Republicans should use caution in using past liberal behavior to justify present conservative missteps like
Coulter’s. Hugh stops there, but the difference is that Republicans tend to shun or officially censure those within their ranks who embarrass the party through their behavior or words, as
Coulter did at
CPAC. Democrats, as in the case of John Kerry’s repeated insults to troops recently and in
1971, or Speaker
Pelosi’s personal attacks of the President’s intellect and competence, seem to reward controversial behavior with high office and unwavering support. Hugh Hewitt makes an excellent point by reminding Republicans that they should seek to rise above the standard set by the other party and expect more dignity from its members.
The Republican reaction to
Coulter should be sincere and hopefully will send a message that John Edwards’ political views provide sufficient fodder for reasoned, analytical refutation without resorting to personal attacks. While Republican candidates should make it clear that epithets are discouraged, they should likewise not close the door completely on
Coulter’s other, more civilized contributions to political discourse. If every public figure, whether in politics, entertainment, sports, or the media, were to be permanently shunned for one lapse of judgment or poor choice of words, few in these fields today would survive the scrutiny. Forgiveness is perhaps the rarest of all human gifts, but is the one commodity that should be meted out, no pun intended, liberally.
sented to the public. While it is perfectly normal to question one’s own sanity for self-inflicting such political torment, it is not normal for a news channel to question the sanity of a revered former American president. That is, unless that channel happens to be CNN.
h the clear knowledge that the AP article had nothing to do with insanity or any mental illness. Where did CNN get the idea to link Reagan with insanity? The AP article, titled “Reagan’s wit, humor comes through In detailed diaries,” included one vignette of Reagan’s struggle with then teenage daughter Patti, who despised the limitations a Secret Service detail placed on her activities. Reagan wrote of Patti’s tantrums and literal screams at him and the agents to get rid of her protective detail, “Insanity is hereditary. You catch it from your kids.”
, and even a cursory comparison of those cruelty-induced confessions with the boastful admissions of KSM should convince anyone that KSM made no statements under duress at the tribunal and was not tortured into a confession, as our POWs were, in grotesque and unspeakable ways. To compare the two situations is an insult to the courageous suffering America POWs endured in Vietnam.
