Slick Dancing Mitt's troupe of Coulter-defending dancers

[BobcatJH]

I'll give Evangelicals for Mitt's Charles Mitchell credit, he's proven himself to be one of the few on the other side to not respond to criticism by using language most commonly heard uttered by Vice President Cheney on the Senate floor. Responding, I'm guessing, to criticism from myself and others about his equating Howard Dean with Ann Coulter - "Here's the problem for Chairman Dean, though: His rhetoric (claiming the remark was "hate-filled and bigoted") is no less overblown than Coulter's. What she said was not hate-filled; it was just unnecessary and way over the line." - Mitchell has updated his original post to "revise and extend" his original comments. In short, he's sticking by what he said. So allow me then, Charles, to reply.

Before I do so, let's again set the table by looking back at what was said, and by whom. It was Coulter, you'll remember, who said the following at CPAC: "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." In response, Dean said, "There is no place in political discourse for this kind of hate-filled and bigoted comments. While Democrats and Republicans may disagree on the issues, we should all be able to agree that this kind of vile rhetoric is out of bounds. The American people want a serious, thoughtful debate of the issues. Republicans - including the Republican presidential candidates who shared the podium with Ann Coulter today - should denounce her hateful remarks."

Mitchell begins by standing by what he and Kathryn Jean Lopez said: "However, I stand by the point that Dean's rhetoric was overblown, because I agree with K-Lo that Coulter was simply being Coulter." Moving on, he writes, "I've seen her speak repeatedly before, and her schtick is making flippant, insulting remarks about liberals. Plain and simple. That is what her comment about Senator Edwards was. I truly do not think she said it because she hates gay people. Instead, I think she said it because she dislikes liberals a lot more than she should and enjoys saying things she really should not say about them. She used the word she did because it is a common insult and in many respects disconnected from its actual meaning. If you doubt this, visit a public school playground. I grew up on them and, before I was converted, used their common language. The word she used is simply an epithet. That's why she used it."

Now that we've again read what Dean (and Coulter) said and have seen what you've said in response to progressive criticism, Charles, allow me to ask you some important questions: Exactly what part of what Dean said was overblown? Were Coulter's comments not "hate-filled" and "bigoted"? Assuming they were, shouldn't those on both sides of the aisle agree that such rhetoric is out of bounds? And finally, why shouldn't those GOP presidential hopefuls speaking alongside Coulter at CPAC denounce her remarks? Sure, what Coulter said last week was part of her "schtick", just like her calling Muslims "ragheads" was a year prior. Or her badmouthing the September 11 widows. Or her racist words about Kwanzaa. Or her call for the assassination of a sitting Supreme Court justice. And that "schtick", as you call it, is a proven track record of vile, bigoted statements. Plain and simple.

It doesn't matter that you consider the word "faggot" a "common insult" that you argue is "disconnected from its actual meaning" - let's call yours the Glenn Beck School of Naughty Names - it matters that she purposely chose to use hate-filled language universally recognized as such. So what if she said it because she dislikes progressives, likes selling books and enjoys getting a rise out of an audience? She said what she said; don't divorce her language from its meaning. Ask one of the myriad gay Americans on the receiving end of that insult how they feel about what Coulter said. Ask them if they think Dean calling her words "hate-filled" and "bigoted" was "overblown". Ask them if they agree with you that what Coulter said wasn't hate-filled? And finally, ask them if they agree with what Romney that Coulter following him at CPAC was "a good thing"?

Also, don't try to obscure the larger point by doing what conservatives seem to do best, draw false equivalences. "And if you don't think people divorce words from their true meaning in order to use them as epithets, well, you're wrong," you write. "I can't count how many times I have heard proud atheists exclaim, 'Jesus Christ!' to show their anger. Those words mean something to those of us here, but to many - appallingly - they are simply an epithet. I think that's what Coulter was thinking, too. Yes, that was deplorable, and we have said so, but that doesn't make Howard Dean correct." I'm sorry, Charles, but your unnamed atheists aren't exactly bestselling authors, frequent cable news guests and syndicated columnists, are they? So don't insult our intelligence by equating the throwaway comments of the anonymous to the carefully chosen (and insulting) words of a conservative celebrity to the applause of far more than one fellow traveller in attendance at her CPAC speech.

The bottom line is this, Charles: You apparently don't think a prominent conservative calling a Democratic presidential hopeful a "faggot" is hate-filled. What's more, you think that questioning said prominent conservative's vulgar rhetoric is overblown. Tell me, then, Charles, what does constitute, in your opinion, a hate-filled, bigoted comment as opposed to "schtick"? And when is criticizing such a comment not overblown? Your site's message of support for Romney says, in part, "We believe that the leader of the free world should not only understand, but also articulate why, a values-based governing strategy will result in a more humane, just, and compassionate society." Judging by Romney's praise of Coulter and your incredibly weak rebuke of her words, can we believe seriously that your candidate (or, by extension, his supporters) truly possesses the values that will result in "a more humane, just, and compassionate society"? Or will we simply have elected a man who thinks Coulter's CPAC appearance was "a good thing" and whose voters stop short of considering the use of the word "faggot" hate-filled?

That's not the America in which I want to live.

[yourout]

1. "What she said was not hate-filled.."

Like hell is wasn't.

[BobcatJH]

2. My sentiments exactly

Spot-on.