The John Edwards thread

[Effloresce]

Originally Posted by BlueStar

Bottom line, what a person does and says in their personal life on their personal time should not affect their professional life.

[homechicago]

Bottom line, what a person does and says in their personal life on their personal time should not affect their professional life.



-------

shouldn't, but bill clinton proved it does, and anyone who thinks otherwise in 2007 is a fool.

[Corganist]

Originally Posted by BlueStar

The other chic from Shakespeare's Sister was not hired to be a blogger in any way shape or form. And everything that was written on the campaign blog would be checked by those above her. And, again, everything I said about not speaking for the campaign in the same way that a press/communications staffer does remains true.

I agree that the Shakespeares sister blogger probably got unfairly swept up in the controversy. But I stand by everything else I've said. I think its very illusory distinction you're making between the way a campaign blogger speaks for the campaign and the way a PR person does. They're both pushing the campaign's talking points, and just because a blogger filters those talking points through their own perspective instead of reading a direct statement doesn't mean they are speaking any less for the campaign. Say it with me: The Edwards campaign made a mistake, just a minor one, but a mistake nevertheless.

Bottom line, what a person does and says in their personal life on their personal time should not affect their professional life.

Again, I certainly don't think people's personal blogs and the like should be scrutinized as a rule. But if someone is being hired for a position because of their "personal" blog, then I think that it becomes fair game. If I'm applying for an attorney job, then I don't expect to be held accountable for something I said on the Netphoria politics board. But if someone sees my posts here and likes my style, then based on that offers me a job where I post my political thoughts online and argue with people, then that's totally a different story.

[sppunk]

This guy is so daft - he believes Israel is the biggest threat to world peace. Way to go, John - please keep speaking now so I don't have to stomach your shit for four years later on.

Perhaps the greatest short-term threat to world peace, Edwards remarked, was the possibility that Israel would bomb Iran's nuclear facilities.

http://www.variety.com/article/VR111...egoryid=1&cs=1

[JokeyLoki]

Originally Posted by homechicago

Bottom line, what a person does and says in their personal life on their personal time should not affect their professional life.



-------

shouldn't, but bill clinton proved it does, and anyone who thinks otherwise in 2007 is a fool.

Let me guess, you think he was impeached because he got his dick sucked.

[homechicago]

Originally Posted by JokeyLoki

Let me guess, you think he was impeached because he got his dick sucked.

yup i'm that simple.

learn me more...he lied about something that had to do with national security, oh wait, no, that was scooter.

he lied. i get it.

just curious, do you think w is pure as the driven snow and hasn't committed crimes possibly more important than lying under oath, oh wait, he never goes under oath about anything, and he hasn't has special prosecutors hauling him into court on trumped up real estate charges and then questioned about something else entirely.

grow up.

[JokeyLoki]

Originally Posted by homechicago

yup i'm that simple.

learn me more...he lied about something that had to do with national security, oh wait, no, that was scooter.

he lied. i get it.

just curious, do you think w is pure as the driven snow and hasn't committed crimes possibly more important than lying under oath, oh wait, he never goes under oath about anything, and he hasn't has special prosecutors hauling him into court on trumped up real estate charges and then questioned about something else entirely.

grow up.

Way to throw in some shit that had nothing to do with anything.. if you want to sound halfway intelligent, don't pull stuff out of your ass.

If you want to know my views about Bush, do some searching. You're way off. Not that it actually has shit to do with this conversation.

[Corganist]

Originally Posted by homechicago

just curious, do you think w is pure as the driven snow and hasn't committed crimes possibly more important than lying under oath, oh wait, he never goes under oath about anything, and he hasn't has special prosecutors hauling him into court on trumped up real estate charges and then questioned about something else entirely.

I hope you don't really think that the story goes that Clinton got hauled into court to talk about real estate and got ambushed with blowjob questions. Clinton got sued for sexual harrassment in a matter totally seperate from Whitewater, and thats where the blowjob questions were asked. Clinton lied on the stand, then the independent counsel got interested in his sex life...not the other way around. If you want to be outraged, at least be outraged at what actually happened.

But I digress, none of this really has anything to do with John Edwards or his bloggers. Trying to play off the controversy over the things one or both of them wrote as being some sort of personal privacy issue is spin and nothing more.

[BlueStar]

Originally Posted by sppunk

This guy is so daft - he believes Israel is the biggest threat to world peace. Way to go, John - please keep speaking now so I don't have to stomach your shit for four years later on.

http://www.variety.com/article/VR111...egoryid=1&cs=1

Erroneous article!

Edwards: Israel NOT a threat to world peace

WASHINGTON John Edwards' presidential campaign wants to make it clear that he doesn't consider Israel a threat to world peace.

A spokesman for the 2008 Democratic candidate issued a statement today denying such a report on Variety.com.

Columnist Peter Bart reports that Edwards told a Hollywood fundraiser last month that the possibility that Israel would bomb Iran's nuclear facilities is perhaps the greatest short-term threat to world peace.

Edwards' spokesman Jonathan Prince says the article is erroneous. He says Edwards says one of the greatest short-term threats to world peace is Iran acquiring a nuclear weapon.

Bart and the host of the fundraiser, Adam Venit of the Endeavor talent agency, didn't immediately respond to messages for comment.

http://www.fox21.com/global/story.as...Type=Printable

[ella]

Originally Posted by Corganist

I hope you don't really think that the story goes that Clinton got hauled into court to talk about real estate and got ambushed with blowjob questions. Clinton got sued for sexual harrassment in a matter totally seperate from Whitewater, and thats where the blowjob questions were asked. Clinton lied on the stand, then the independent counsel got interested in his sex life...not the other way around. If you want to be outraged, at least be outraged at what actually happened.

But I digress, none of this really has anything to do with John Edwards or his bloggers. Trying to play off the controversy over the things one or both of them wrote as being some sort of personal privacy issue is spin and nothing more.

The Clinton Impeachment was just a blatant example of the abuse of congressional powers... and that's all it will ever be. It's embarrassing that such a committee could be so obsessed and consumed with partisanship. First off- right wing extremist Kenneth Starr is appointed as the special prosecutor, who oddly did not even have any previous prosecutorial experience -lol just close ties to the Republican Party. well well wheres the bias in that? Starr spends millions of $ investigating some Clinton Arkansas land deal (which he made prior to being elected) and of course Starr is unable to produce anything other than some sex scandal with a whitehouse intern. Starr then wants to investigate this for something like obstruction of justice. Really, this is a completely dif matter-someone else of independent counsel should have been appointed to investigate this issue. and that that was an impeachable act? high crimes and misdemeanors? Give me a fucking break. And then Starr issues a recommendation on impeachment-Really, he was in no authority to do so. and that the House Judiciary Committee released that as a report? lol The committee would've never released such a report during the Nixon Impeachment. and it just goes on from there, although the majority of the public did not support the impeachment, the republican majority voted-and you know the outcome. What bullshit.

[BlueStar]

A new Iowa poll has been released. It is from Republican firm Strategic Vision. But, of course, polls are polls, and polls this early out are pretty much meaningless. However, this is at least a state-specific poll in an early primary state (which, while still shit, is far superior to the shit that is national polls).

Edwards: 24
Clinton: 18
Obama: 18
Vilsack: 14
Biden: 5
Richardson: 3
Clark: 2
Dodd: 1
Kucinich: 1
Undecided: 14

Practically no movement - still pretty much the same numbers as every other Iowa poll for past few months.

[BlueStar]

For those who want to learn more about Edwards, a blogger over here - http://mydd.com/story/2007/2/24/233842/044 - has compiled a long list of video, audio, and transcripts.

[Nimrod's Son]

Originally Posted by BlueStar

For those who want to learn more about Edwards, a blogger over here - http://mydd.com/story/2007/2/24/233842/044 - has compiled a long list of video, audio, and transcripts.

Originally Posted by Unbiased Blogger

John Edwards is a great presidential candidate.

Shit, I'm sold.

[BlueStar]

Originally Posted by Nimrod's Son

Shit, I'm sold.

The links are what I was specifically linking to, not the blogger's commentary. Links of video, audio, and transcripts of appearance and speeches, from which you can judge for yourself.

[Nimrod's Son]

lol @ john edwards trying to recruit furries and pedophiles

http://www.secondlifeherald.com/slh/...dwards_st.html

John Edwards HQ Owner Claims Goon Texture Theft

Jose Rote “hopes they don’t get banned”
HQ may move to Sundance Film Festival's island in a week

by Pixeleen Mistral, National Affairs desk
http://www.secondlifeherald.com/slh/...apshot_004.jpg
Jose Rote

Tuesday evening, Jose Rote - the owner of John Edwards’ Second Life campaign headquarters - had his hands full. A strikingly similar headquarters next door supporting a TV psychic was mocking the idea of running presidential campaigns inside a game world. Even worse, his compound was becoming a high maintenance operation with reports of overnight defacing of the pristine building. I spoke with Mr. Rote as he cleaned “last one to die please turn out the light” graffiti from the floor of the metaverse HQ for the John Edwards campaign.

When I asked Mr. Rote for his reaction to the TV mind reading psychic John Edward presidential HQ next door he found the idea behind the build boring - but he was also concerned about possible texture theft. Perhaps we should have sent an SL fashion correspondent to cover this story?

Jose Rote: I just hope they don't get banned for stealing some of the textures
Pixeleen Mistral: did they steal some of the textures?
Jose Rote: yeah
Pixeleen Mistral: would that be a DMCA thing?
Jose Rote: you can look if you like, the mailbox
Pixeleen Mistral: any other besides the mailbox?
Jose Rote: that was the only one I saw, but like I said, but I didn't look that closely, at first I was worried that they used copybot, but once I saw they didn't steal the scripts I left.


http://www.secondlifeherald.com/slh/...apshot_001.jpg
graffiti artists like John Edwards' HQ

Mr. Rote’s concerns with his neighbor’s build seem to go beyond potential texture theft and he told me, “they forget to actually come up with a point or a statement. I mean, I'm glad they are involved in some kind of way, and bad activism is better than no activism again, but it seems that if they were going to go to such effort, they could have done something more useful.”

http://www.secondlifeherald.com/slh/...shot_002_1.jpg
Will Mr. Rote spend less time cleaning on an island?

Conventional wisdom in Second Life suggests those who wish to import the real world into the metaverse are best served by tightly controlled private islands - particularly since many residents seem to prefer to separate second life and real life - and actively discourage RL incursions into their fantasy universe. This may be the source of some of the problems Mr. Rote is experiencing - the Edwards HQ is located on the mainland where diverse neighborhoods are the norm. On the other hand - what of the political symbolism of fleeing to the gated-community islands? Apparently Mr. Rote expects to flee the mainland soon.

Jose Rote: I believe the Sundance Film Festival has offered us some space on their island, so I need to move us over there, and now that we have over 150 members, we need to start building some leadership within the group
Pixeleen Mistral: the islands are sorta elitist though
Pixeleen Mistral: might want to think about the symbolism there
Jose Rote: yes, but for a campaign, we do need a degree of sterility, huffington (www.huffingtonpost.com) posted some RIDULOUS thing trying to claim that because there was an adult picture a SIM AWAY, that Edwards was somehow responsible
Jose Rote: and I recognise that John Edward people would think it is funny to say, throw penises or something childish
Pixeleen Mistral: I believe there were there were elephant scrotums and oil dereks involved last night
Pixeleen Mistral: I didn't see that myself though
Jose Rote: so, unfortunately, we should go somewhere where we don't have to put up with that silliness
Pixeleen Mistral: so you are trying to raise the level of discourse
Pixeleen Mistral: that makes sense
Pixeleen Mistral: So Jose - when do you think you will move to the islands?
Jose Rote: maybe a week?
Pixeleen Mistral: Any final words for the Herald readers?
Jose Rote: Vote Edwards!
Pixeleen Mistral: that fits
Pixeleen Mistral: good luck

http://www.secondlifeherald.com/slh/...apshot_006.jpg
Ink-stained Redaktisto Noble has volunteered to help out

While Mr. Rote continued his cleanup operations I ran into a virtual ink-stained wretch - SLNN editor Redaktisto Noble. Mr. Noble told me he is a volunteer for the Edwards campaign - which may shed some light on the slant of the SLNN Edwards coverage.

Next door, the goons were partying at their new home away from Baku and had a radio playing “Hey Ya” by the Outcast. As I watched them dancing I wondered if it is a good idea to put corporations and presidential politics in Second Life. Aren’t most residents here trying to get away from this sort of thing?

http://www.secondlifeherald.com/slh/images/e2.jpg
Are these potential RL politcal activists?

http://www.secondlifeherald.com/slh/...apshot_010.jpg
really?

[Nimrod's Son]

Fox News Discovers Second Life; Calls on Edwards to Denounce Virtual Underage Sex Brothels

Fox News political analyst and former AOL VP Kirsten Powers has posted a video blog calling for Democratic Presidential Candidate John Edwards to denounce some of his unseemly second life neighbors, including the "virtual rape fantasy clubs, virtual underage sex brothels and sadly unsurprising proliferation of porn." Behold the video:

An Excerpt from the blog itself is below the fold:


From Kirsten Powers' Blog:

"As you will see, the Edwards HQ has some disturbed neighbors. Particularly troubling are the rape fantasy clubs and the child sex brothel called Jailbait (the "owner" of the club, a 35-year- old woman named Emily Semaphore refers it as "age-play.") The "Second Life Herald" complains that "Intersexed Avatar Children Hard to Find" [I think Kirsten's irony detectors need adjusting -- Uri] and provides this handy graph to explain what kind of virtual child sex the adult members of Second Life are engaging in


http://www.secondlifeherald.com/slh/images/chart_1.jpg

And when I went to check out the "most visited places" almost every place on the list involved porn. If the Edwards campaign is going to have a presence in Second Life, then it seems they should seize the opportunity to take a stand against the virtual rape fantasy clubs, virtual underage sex brothels and sadly unsurprising proliferation of porn."

[ravenguy2000]

http://www.towleroad.com/2007/03/ann_coulter_cal.html

Ann Coulter calls John Edwards a "Faggot"

At the Conservative Political Action Conference today, which was attended by 2008 Republican Presidential candidates Mitt Romney, Rudy Giuliani, Mike Huckabee, Tom Tancredo (R-CO), Senator Sam Brownback (R-KS), former Congressman Duncan Hunter (R-CA) as well as Vice President Dick Cheney, Ann Coulter referred to Senator John Edwards as a "faggot".

After being introduced by Romney, who said "I am happy to hear that after you hear from me, you will hear from Ann Coulter. That is a good thing. Oh yeah!", Coulter took the stage and 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." (video)

Coulter's comments were met with an audible gasp and then a smattering of applause and cheers. Disgusting.

It's not the first time Coulter has used anti-gay slurs as a form of insult. Last July she called Al Gore "a total fag".

HRC's Joe Solmonese issued this statement: "To interject this word into American political discourse is a vile and disgusting way to sink the debate to a new, all-time low. Make no doubt about it, these remarks go directly against what our Founding Fathers intended and have no place on the schoolyard, much less our country’s political arena. It is clear that some in the Republican Party plan to run in 2008 the same way they did in 2004, by using discrimination to divide the country and rally their base. But, 2008 is not 2004, and this time the politics of fear and smear will not work. The American people are tired of those who would rather divide than unite."

Solmonese also called on Republicans to come forward and condemn Coulter's hate speech:

“We demand that every single Presidential candidate in attendance at this conference, along with Vice President Cheney stand up and publicly condemn this type of gutter-style politics. If not, then their silence will be deafening to the vast majority of Americans who believe this type of language belongs no where near the discussions about the future of our country."

[ravenguy2000]

http://thinkprogress.org/2007/03/02/coulter-edwards/

video

[Nimrod's Son]

please someone tell me you watched that video with the child rape

[ravenguy2000]

yeah that was hot

[BlueStar]

Edwards Sends Video to 70,000 Iowa Homes
By: Ben Smith
March 5, 2007
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0307/2976.html

John Edwards is mailing DVDs to more than 70,000 Iowa households this week, an aide said, introducing the audience of likely caucus-goers to his plan for universal health care with a combination of passion, wonkiness, and implicit comparison with his rivals.

Edwards’ video is the first effort this presidential cycle to reach voters directly and in numbers beyond those who tune into announcement speeches on television or on candidates’ websites. The mailing reflects the continuing centrality of Iowa in the presidential primary process, and to Edwards’ campaign in particular.

“I keep hearing people describe me as a ‘populist’,” Edwards says late in the six minute, seventeen-second video, which alternates between the candidate and unnamed Iowans speaking about their health-care worries. “If being a populist means you feel deeply and strongly committed to regular people having a real chance and not getting run over by big, powerful interests – oh yeah, if that’s true, I’m a populist.”

Edwards' ability to stay even, in the key early measures of fundraising and media attention, with his two rock-star rivals, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, has hinged on polls showing him with a lead among Iowa’s caucus-goers. He has paid 17 visits to the state since November, 2004. ...

Without his rivals' celebrity – or even a platform in government -- Edwards has kept himself in a perceived top tier of presidential candidates by scrambling to stay ahead of his rivals organizationally, ideologically, and in the details of his policy.

The video and accompanying glossy mailer embody all three. It will be the first mailing of the 2008 campaign season for most Iowans, and it presses the point that he has a more thoroughly fleshed-out plan to reform the nation’s healthcare system than do his rivals. ...

His plan has won praise from influential voices in Democratic politics, including the New York Times columnist Paul Krugman, who is quoted in the mailing that Iowans will receive with the video.

Edwards’ video also represents a move to keep to the left of his rivals in a state that is thought to favor liberal Democratic candidates. The economic populism Edwards has embraced, in the form of organized labor and of his health-care plan, dovetails with his push to pull soldiers out of Iraq more rapidly than his rivals would.

And Edwards, like his rivals, also makes a bid for the elusive quality of authenticity.

The video closes with an Iowa man telling the camera, of Edwards, “He keeps talking about ‘the right’ and ‘the truth,’ and we haven’t heard that in a while.”

[Nimrod's Son]

good, i hope he insults all of the old people with their vcrs. schmuck.

[Future Boy]

They're probably too senile to be counted on anyway.

[ravenguy2000]

yeah i was going to say since when are there 70,000 dvd players in iowa

[Nimrod's Son]

he probably should have sent them on 8-track

[ravenguy2000]

or phonograph

[ravenguy2000]

Posting this here because she surely doesn't deserve her own thread -

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/03/...ads/index.html

Companies to pull ads from Coulter's Web site

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- At least three major companies want their ads pulled from Ann Coulter's Web site, following customer complaints about the right-wing commentator referring to Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards as a "faggot."

Verizon, Sallie Mae and Georgia-based NetBank each said they didn't know their ads were on AnnCoulter.com until they received the complaints.

A diarist at the liberal blog DailyKos.com posted contact information for dozens of companies with ads on Coulter's site after the commentator made her remarks about Edwards at the Conservative Political Action Conference in Washington on Friday. (Full story)

"One of the best ways to communicate one's distaste for Coulter's repeated incidents of hate speech is to respectfully but firmly let her advertisers know you are deeply troubled by their indirect support of bigotry through their advertising on Coulter's Web site," the blogger VolvoDrivingLiberal wrote on DailyKos.com on Sunday.

Verizon, Sallie Mae and NetBank said the ads were put on a variety of sites by a third party company. In many cases, advertisers do not know which sites feature their ads.

"Per our policy, the networked Web site ad purchases are supposed to be stripped of certain kinds of Web sites," said a Verizon spokesperson. "This one could be considered an extreme political Web site, should be off the list, and now it is off the list."

A Sallie Mae spokesperson said the company was only testing an online advertising agency, and that their ads were not meant to show up on Coulter's site. The company said they planned to pull ads from other political and religious Web sites as well.

A spokesperson for NetBank said Coulter's page "is not the kind of site we want to be on."

Coulter did not respond to CNN's request for comment.

__________________________________________________ ____________________

So in other words she can say things like

"These broads are millionaires, lionized on TV and in articles about them, reveling in their status as celebrities and stalked by grief-arazzis... These self-obsessed women seemed genuinely unaware that 9/11 was an attack on our nation and acted as if the terrorist attacks happened only to them... I’ve never seen people enjoying their husbands’ deaths so much."

and

"I don't know if [former U.S. President Bill Clinton is] gay. But [former U.S. Vice President] Al Gore - total fag."

and

"I think our motto should be, post-9-11, 'raghead talks tough, raghead faces consequences."

and

"Vester: You say you'd rather not talk to liberals at all?
Coulter: I think a baseball bat is the most effective way these days."

but she calls John Edwards a "faggot" and Verizon goes running for the hills?

What. the fucking. fuck. I have no problem with Ann Coulter, she's essentially the equivalent of a real life internet troll, but the corporate hypocrisy here is just mind boggling.

[BlueStar]

Originally Posted by Nimrod's Son

he probably should have sent them on 8-track

Stereotypical and idiotic.

Most Iowans do have DVD players. Most also have the internet, cable TV, phones, and running water.

[Debaser]

Ann Coulter and the right wing psyche in a nutshell:

Tuesday March 6, 2007 07:02 EST
The right-wing cult of contrived masculinity

In a very vivid way, this Ann Coulter moment is shining a light on the right-wing movement that is so bright that even national journalists would be able to recognize some important truths if they just looked even casually. Kirsten Powers was on Fox last night with Bill O'Reilly and Michelle Malkin and, as shocking as it is, Powers managed to ask the only question that matters with this whole episode, thereby forcing Malkin to make the critical concession, the one which right-wing pundits have been desperate to avoid:



KP: [Coulter] has said a lot of horrible things . . . . she's done all these things. And I don't understand why if this is the pre-eminent conservative movement place to be speaking, why she is chosen as a person to speak . . .

BO: Why do you think they invited her, Michelle?

MM: She's very popular among conservatives. And let me say this. I have been a long-time admirer of much of Ann's work. She has done yeomen's work for conservatism. But I think, lately, over the last couple of years, that there has been this penchant for hurling these kinds of bombs.

And there is a divided opinion among grass-roots conservatives about what she did. I was one of the people who condemned the raghead comment last year . . . . If going into 2008, that is what the Republican Party is trying to do and win back the Congress and take the Congress and win the White House, having her there is not going to be a help.



This is why -- the only reason -- Coulter's remarks are so significant. And the significance lies not just in this specific outburst on Friday but in the whole array of hate-mongering, violence-inciting remarks over all these years. Its significance lies in the critical fact that Malkin expressly acknowledged: "She's very popular among conservatives." The focus of these stories should not be Coulter, but instead, should be the conservative movement in which Ann Coulter -- precisely because of (not "despite") her history of making such comments -- is "very popular." (Note, too, that Malkin urges that Coulter be shunned not because her conduct is so reprehesensible, but because her presence "is not going to be a help" win the 2008 election).

While lazy journalists will ingest and repeat until their death the storyline that right-wing bloggers and the conservative movement have finally denounced Coulter once and for all, she was absolutely right when she said last night, sitting by her good friend Sean Hannity, that nothing will change as a result of these comments. As she correctly observed: "This is my 17th allegedly career-ending moment."

There may be a handful of decent (though largely inconsequential) conservatives who genuinely want to disassociate the movement from her, but that is not going to happen, because it cannot. And Sean Hannity -- whose fans, like Coulter's, number in the millions, not the thousands like the anti-Coulter-bloggers -- made that very clear as he defended her comments as obvious "humor," claimed the comments were taken out of context, etc. etc. The real conservative leaders, the people to whom millions of conservatives actually listen -- the Rush Limbaughs and Sean Hannitys and Ann Coulters and the CPAC itself -- are going to continue exactly as they were, and Coulter is going to continue to play exactly the central role she has played in this movement.

Are there any journalists at all interested in figuring out why this is the case? If Coulter is such a blight on humanity, such a monument to indecency and all that is wretched in our political culture, what does it say about the political movement that has been running our country for the last six years (at least) that they embrace her so enthusiastically?

Coulter plays a vital and irreplaceable role in this movement. The reason I linked to that Bob Somerby post on Maureen Dowd yesterday is because he makes the critical point -- one which Digby, among others, has been making for a long time, including in a great post last night -- concerning how the right-wing movement conducts itself and the rhetorical tool they use not only to keep themselves in power, but more importantly, to keep their needy, confused, and scared base feeling strong and protected. As Digby put it:



"The underlying premise of the modern conservative movement is that the entire Democratic party consists of a bunch of fags and dykes who are both too effeminate and too masculine to properly lead the nation. Coulter says it out loud. Dowd hints at it broadly. And the entire press corps giggles and swoons at this shallow, sophomoric concept like a bunch of junior high pom pom girls."



Coulter insisted last night that she did not intend the remark as an anti-gay slur -- that she did not intend to suggest that John Edwards, husband and father, was gay -- but instead only used the word as a "schoolyard taunt," to call him a sissy. And that is true. Her aim was not to suggest that Edwards is actually gay, but simply to feminize him like they do with all male Democratic or liberal political leaders.

For multiple reasons, nobody does that more effectively or audaciously than Coulter, which is why they need her so desperately and will never jettison her. How could they possibly shun her for engaging in tactics on which their entire movement depends? They cannot, which is why they are not and will not.

The converse of this is equally true. As critical as it is to them to feminize Democratic and liberal males (and to masculinize the women), even more important is to create false images of masculine power and strength around their authority figures. The reality of this masculine power is almost always non-existent. The imagery is what counts.

This works exactly the same as the images of moral purity that they work so hard to manufacture, whereby the leaders they embrace -- such as Gingrich, Limbaugh, Bill Bennett, even the divorced and estranged-from-his-children Ronald Reagan and Coulter herself -- are plauged by the most morally depraved and reckless personal lives, yet still parade around as the heroes of the "Values Voters." Just as what matters is that their leaders prance around as moral leaders (even while deviating as far as they want from those standards), what matters to them also is that their leaders play-act as strong and masculine figures, even when there is no basis, no reality, to the play-acting.

Ronald Reagan never got anywhere near war (claiming eyesight difficulties to avoid deployment in World War II), and he spent his life as a Hollywood actor, not a rancher, yet to this day, conservatives swoon over his masculine role-playing as though he is some sort of super-brave military hero. Meanwhile, Jimmy Carter, who actually graduated the Naval Academy and was assigned to real live nuclear submarines, is mocked as a weak and snivelling coward who should not have a ship named after him.

And the ultimate expression of faux, empty, masculine courage and power is, of course, the Commander-in-Chief himself -- the Glorious Leader whom John Podhoretz hailed in the title of his worshippful cult book as The First Great Leader of the 21st Century -- with the ranch hats and brush-clearing pants and flight-suit outfits that would make the Village People seethe with jealousy over his costume choices. Just behold this poster which was a much in-demand item at past CPAC events (h/t Digby), which makes as clear as can be how these Bush followers have tried to idealize their Leader:
http://photos1.blogger.com/x/blogger...46655/bush.jpg

That laughable absurdity really reveals the heart of this movement. It is a cult of contrived masculinity whereby people dress up as male archtypes like cowboys, ranchers, and tough guys even though they are nothing of the kind -- or prance around as Churchillian warriors because they write from a safe and protected distance about how great war is -- and in the process become triumphant heroes and masculine powerful icons and strong leaders. They and their followers triumph over the weak, effete, humiliated Enemy, and thereby become powerful and exceptional and safe.

The second-most astonishing political fact over the last six years -- after the permanently jaw-dropping and incomparably disgraceful fact that 70% of Americans believed as late as September, 2003 (6 months after the invasion) that Saddam Hussein personally participated in the planning of the 9/11 attacks (a fact which, by itself, profoundly indicts all of our political and media instititutions at once) -- is that the 2004 presidential candidate who actually volunteered to fight, in actual combat, in the Vietnam jungle was the one depicted as the weak subversive coward, while the candidate who used every family connection possible to avoid ever fighting was depicted as the brave, masculine, fighter-warrior who had the backbone to stand down the Evil Enemies and protect us all.

That is why so many of them who have never been anywhere near the military -- and will never go near it even as their wars are endangered by a lack of volunteers -- have a monomanical obsession with military glory, with constant displays of how "resolute" and "courageous" they are, with notions of forced "submission" and "humiliation" of their opponents (just take notice of how central a role those concepts play in neoconservative "arguments"), and with depicting those who oppose the wars they cheer on as "cowards" (even when the cowards in question are decorated Marines with 30 years of service).

John Dean and Bob Altemeyer have both documented this dynamic as clearly and convincingly as can be. People who feel weak and vulnerable crave strong leaders to protect them and to enable them to feel powerful. And those same people crave being part of a political movement that gives them those sensations of power, strength, triumph and bravery -- and they need a strong, powerful, masculine Leader to enable those feelings. And they will devote absolute loyalty to any political movement which can provide them with that.

That is just the basic dynamic of garden-variety authoritarianism, and it is what the right-wing, pro-Bush political movement is at its core -- far, far more than it is a set of political beliefs or geopolitical objectives or moral agendas. All of it -- the obsessions with glorious "Victory" in an endless string of wars, vesting more and more power in an all-dominant centralized Leader, the forced submission of any country or leader which does not submit to the Leader's Will, the unquestioning Manichean certainties, and especially the endless stigmatization of the whole array of Enemies as decadent, depraved and weak -- it's just base cultural tribalism geared towards making the followers feel powerful and strong and safe.

The Coulter/Hannity/Limabugh-led right wing is basically the Abu Grahib rituals finding full expression in an authoritarian political movement. The reason people like Rush Limbaugh not only were unbothered, but actually delighted and even tickled by, Abu Grahib is because that is the full-blooded manifestation of the impulses underlying this movement -- feelings of power and strength from the most depraved spectacles of force. The only real complaint from Bush followers about the Commander-in-Chief is that he has not given them enough Guantanamos and wars and aggression and barbaric slaughter and liberty infringement. Their hunger for those things is literally insatiable because they need fresh pretexts for feeling strong.

And that is where Ann Coulter comes in and plays such a vital -- really indispensible -- role. As a woman who purposely exudes the most exaggerated American feminine stereotypes (the long blond hair, the make-up, the emaciated body), her obsession with emasculating Democratic males -- which, at bottom, is really what she does more than anything else -- energizes and stimulates the right-wing "base" like nothing else can. Just witness the fervor with which they greet her, buy her books, mob her on college campuses. Can anyone deny that she is unleashing what lurks at the very depths of the right-wing psyche? What else explains not just her popularity, but the intense embrace of her by the "base"?

Observe in the superb CPAC video produced by Max Blumenthal how Coulter immediately mocks his physical appearance as soon as she realizes that he is a liberal. And the crowd finds it hilarious. That is what she does. She takes liberal males, emasculates them, depicts them as "faggots" and weak losers, and thereby makes the throngs of weak and insecure followers who revere her feel masculine and strong. There is no way that the right-wing movement can shun her because what she does is indispensible to the entire spectacle. What she does is merely a more explicit re-inforcement of every central theme which the right-wing movement embraces.

Whatever else is true, let us dispense with the myth that Coulter is some sort of fringe or discredited figure among conservatives. That such a claim is pure myth is self-evident and has been for some time. But journalists who do not rely on such evidence can at least rely on Michelle Malkin's assurances: "She's very popular among conservatives." Now the simple task for journalists is to ask why that is and what that means about this movement.
-Glenn Greenwald

links to all the references are within the article on the website.
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwa...tml?source=rss

[ravenguy2000]

"The underlying premise of the modern conservative movement is that the entire Democratic party consists of a bunch of fags and dykes who are both too effeminate and too masculine to properly lead the nation. Coulter says it out loud. Dowd hints at it broadly. And the entire press corps giggles and swoons at this shallow, sophomoric concept like a bunch of junior high pom pom girls."

Originally Posted by The Omega Concern

The Jihadist must be licking their chops upon viewing the complete and utter wussification of the United States.