March 3, 2007

More on Republican hate

Glenn Greenwald has moved his blog to Salon, if you didn't know that, and has a great column on the Coulter hate speech, and how popular it is among that far right. For me it is the part of the oddest damn bedfellows I have ever seen--sometimes in the same people. On one side, religious leaders who assert "moral values" and talk about "Biblical values" and how their leader is a good "Christan man" or "Man of God." On the other side are people who routinely call to nuke parts of the Middle East, embrace our torture of detainees, and love to question the morality, patriotism, and sexuality of liberals. And sometimes, like I said, they are the same people. I am sure we recall that James Dobson devoted two separate days to interviewing (and laughing with) Ann Coulter. Do you think that Mr. Biblical Values is now calling for an appology from her?

This actually relates to my previous post, where Bruce Prescott reiterated Randall Balmer's argument that the religious right coalesced, not around protecting pre-born life, but around defending racial segregation. When religious right leaders speak out against such hatred voiced at these conferences, they will get some small bit of respect from me--until then, I will think of Ann Coulter when I think of the Religious Right.

Glenn Greenwald - Salon: "And after she does that, she is cheered wildly by an adoring conservative movement that has made her bigoted and hate-mongering screeds best-sellers, all while they and their deceitful little allies in the media, such as Howard Kurtz of The Washington Post, write idiot tracts about how terribly upset they are by the affront to decency from HuffPost commenters [in between writing obsequious, tongue-wagging profiles of Coulter's most radical ideological allies, such as Michelle Malkin, who penned a lovely defense of the internment of Japanese-Americans, for which even Ronald Reagan apologized (but, I believe, she never cursed while doing so, which is what matters most)].

This is why I wrote so extensively about the Edwards blogger 'scandal' and the Cheney comments 'scandal.' The people feigning upset over those matters are either active participants in, or passive aiders and abetters of, a political movement that, at its very core -- not at its fringes -- knowingly and continuously embraces the most wretched and obvious bigotry and bloodthirsty authoritarianism. They love Ann Coulter -- and therefore continue to make her a venerated part of their political events -- because she provides an outlet, a venting ground, for the twisted psychological impulses and truly hateful face that drives the entire pro-Bush, right-wing spectacle."

4 comments:

steve sundeen said...

I see that you have your own blog. The Jesus Politics one gets pretty clogged up, so I decided to post over here. Again, Ann COulter does not speak for me, nor has she ever seen any of my money in support of her. I did read one of her books 4 or 5 years ago, but I got it from the library.

Streak said...

Steve, you are more than welcome here. Like I said over at JP, my problem is not that Ann Coulter spews out her hate speech, but that she is invited to national conferences and greeted with loud cheers. I would suggest that the many good decent conservatives are being hoodwinked by the GOP. Not only do they not distance themselves from her, they invite her to speak. And she is just one of the hate speakers--Michelle Malkin, Tom Delay, etc.

Streak said...

Steve, here is a great example: Talking Points Memo: by Joshua Micah Marshall March 3, 2007 06:21 PM

Pictures of Mitt Romney, one of the leading GOP contenders with Ann right before she goes on stage to call John Edwards a "faggot." You think Mitt was surprised? She says stuff like this every day.

Now imagine if Hilary was photographed with Ward Churchill laughing and shaking hands. Tell me that the uproar would not be unbelievable.

steve sundeen said...

Streak, I agree with you 100%. I don't feel that the Republican Party represents what I want and I am certainly not excited by their candidates. Romney flip-flops all over the place. Guiliani was a bully, pre-9/11. McCain, I don't know. I thought that the McCain/Feingold legislation was anti-free speech. I don't know much about Tancredo. Ron Paul is kind of a kook and is not electable, by any stretch of the imagination.

OTOH, I am not all that excited by most of the dems. Out of all of them, Bill Richardson seems decent. I wish John Murtha would run.

The GOP will protect their own, though I wish they would get rid of Coulter. I am sure they would be all over Hillary if one of her speakers said something offensive, as they were all over John Edwards in regards to his bloggers. I was disappointed that some people chose to defend those bloggers by attacking some of their attackers, as if it excused what they said.