The Stout Republican

Yes she’s retarded…she’s trying to sell books…but I don’t need to agree or disagree, support or denounce. I think what she said was stupid and childish, but in no way is it representative of me, or the conservative movement for that matter. I think Jeff Goldstein gets it right when he says:

Personally, I don’t feel any need whatever to issue public condemnations of Ann Coulter—though were you to ask me, I’d readily tell you that her remark was juvenile, and that it could well be seen as homophobic (though I am in no position to peer into Coulter’s soul; and of course, “faggot”—though tied to homosexuality—has long been wielded as a slur against masculinity, which has little to do with sexual preference, in much the same way “pussy” is used). And the reason I feel no need to publicly condemn Coulter is that Coulter has never spoken for me.

It is only the absurd idea—grounded in progressive identity politics—that conservatives (or in my case, classical liberals) so march in ideological and ethical lockstep that they are required, when one of their “own” steps out of line, to issue such ludicrous calls for “condemnation” and “distancing” in the first place.

In the political spectrum of the left and right, there always seems to be this false bravado for the sake of politics. Geffen slams Hillary, Obama has to apologize. Coulter slams Edwards, Republicans must respond. I think it’s trash for the most part. It’s a game. Make the other side look bad by taking one statement and making it represent the entire movement.

Glenn Greenwald seemed to think the same thing at one point, but what is good for the goose, is apparently not good for the gander. From Villianous Company:

Ah yes. Who among the wise can hope to withstand the gale force winds of irrefutable Greenwaldian logic? But here Glenn’s past comes back to haunt him. Wanderers into that vast Unclaimed Territory otherwise known as the Mind of Glenn cannot help but be deeply saddened to note that he seems to have come full circle from the Good Greenwald of July, 2006:

…the point was not to impose an obligation for bloggers to condemn every vile comment that comes along. To the contrary, I was objecting to complaints made by numerous right-wing bloggers this weekend that “the Left” did not condemn Frisch’s reprehensible though irrelevant remarks with sufficient vigor and frequency and that this somehow means that they must approve of the tactics.

The point you attribute to me and then rebut at length — that everyone has an obligation to condemn vile comments or else be charged with approving of them — is not a point I made or believe. If anything, that was a point I was refuting.

…to the Evil Coulter/Greenwald of March, 2007:

The more delicate ones will claim to repudiate her comments in the most limited terms, but their actions speak far louder than their cursory and reluctant words. Anyone who went to this event — and that includes Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney, and Dick Cheney — knew exactly what they would be getting… Anyone who makes themselves a part of that event is purposely associating themselves with those sentiments. That is what this Conference is for.

The internet has a knack for tracking the double standard. Yes, if conversation comes up…say Coulter is stupid…and then buy her next book anyways because it’s a guilty pleasure. But…but no one has a personal obligation to “denounce” what another says when the only thing connecting them is a check by which party they are registered as. We’re dealing with an editorialist, not an elected member of Congress who represents a constituency. Good God people, get over it.

Coulter