|
Coulter and Edwards
Paul Henri writes:
Here is my response to Fox News’ request for comments about Ann Coulter’s use of the word “faggot” against John Edwards.
I fully support her joke and her quip about not wanting to harm homosexuals by associating them with Edwards. Finally, conservatives are hitting the liberals with curses that conservatives have been enduring for years. Conservatives should not be apologizing but hitting the liberals much more. Liberals are spoiled crybabies who have been getting their way in the major media for decades. Liberals’ filthy movies and HBO comedians routinely use expletives referring to Republicans and their policies. Moreover, words such as “xenophobe,” “homophobe,” “racist,” “bigot,” “anti-inclusive,” and “hateful” are establishment curses; they are false and highly offensive to conservatives, but liberals routinely use these words to describe conservatives and do not get called down for it by the major media.
Conservatives are not given nearly as much opportunity in the major media. So conservatives have had to go outside the mainstream (talk radio, C-span, and the Net) and are now having to take it up a notch by using curses that attract attention to the fact there are conservatives out their ready to speak out for them. If the major media were “inclusive” (i.e., fair and balanced) and stopped using expletives, the conservatives should also stop. But until then, fight fire with fire; otherwise, conservatives will be viewed with contempt.
LA replies:
I don’t agree. There is no excuse for using language like that. Coulter was speaking at a political conference and used language that would be fighting language used by one man against another. She dragged down a political conference to the level of a low dive, and she used her sex to get away with an insult that no man would use against another man unless he was prepared to fight. Coulter’s vulgarity is indefensible. The conservative movement drags itself down by accommodating her and it.
Alec H. sends the video from ‘04 in which Edwards is seen paying excessive attention to his hair prior to a tv appearance. LA replies:
Yeah, I saw this in ‘04. He has a, I don’t want to call it effeminate because that’s not the right word, but a silly, light-weight aspect (and not just his appearance, but his accent with those huge dyphthongs make him sound silly and light-weight) and I think this is a fair target for attack. But that doesn’t justify the language Coulter used, which was totally unacceptable.
What strikes me as bizarre about Edwards is his silly light-weight aspect combined with his soulless-ambition, demagogic, class-warfare aspect. You wouldn’t expect these two things to co-exist in the same person. It makes him simultaneously very unpleasant and impossible to take seriously
My favorite Edwards moment was his acceptance speech at the ‘04 convention, when he screwed up his face trying to look real tough, and declared to the terrorists out there, “We will destroy you,” but he looked and sounded something like Truman Capote as he said it. It was worse than Dukakis in the Tank. Democrats simply cannot be taken seriously as prospective commanders-in-chief.
David B. writes:
I just watched Ann Coulter with Patrick Caddell on Hannity & Colmes. Coulter says it was “a joke, a schoolyard joke.” Colmes played his usual word games. Hannity said for the ten thousandth time, “Liberals say worse things about us. Durbin called our troops Nazis.” The whole segment was lightweight and unserious. The real fact about Coulter is that she is just part of the frivolity and lack of seriousness that permeates the culture. Can you picture a group of journalists in 1960 sounding like a typical Hannity and Colmes show? Incidentally, I have a tape of Election Night 1960. Watching it recently, I noticed how much more sober and serious the world was then.
Edwards shares with Hussein Obama the unlived-in, boyish appearance you often see in politicians. They are far removed from the average voter and inflict on us things like open borders while keeping themselves insulated from the consequences of the policies they support.
LA replies:
I think it’s despicable for Coulter to insult a man like that on national television and then say it’s a joke. This is like a leftist professor at Duke University in the early ‘90s who called the National Association of Scholars “racist,” and then defended himself (I think it was in a letter to NR) by saying that he was just using “rhetoric.” So he gets to call people racist, and gets to deny that he’s done it. It’s like Oliver Stone producing “JFK,” a movie that made millions of people believe that there had been a vast conspiracy in the U.S. government including Lyndon Johnson to kill President Kennedy, and then, when he was challenged, saying at a press conference that it was just a fiction. So Stone got to have it both ways: he got to spread evil lies into millions of minds, lies that he made them believe were the truth, and he got to deny what he had done. It’s the same with Coulter. She issues a humiliating insult at a public figure, and then pretends that she didn’t do so. No matter how bright Coulter may be, she is a low person, and a conservative movement that makes an icon of her diminishes itself.
Alec H. writes:
Coulter may have overdone it with the “F” bomb, but I have to admit that it made me laugh (and made me recall the “hair” video). If such language retards the traditionalist cause, then of course I’m against it. Given the incessant, foul-mouthed slurs from the other side, though, I’m reminded of General Sherman’s remark: “War is the remedy that our enemies have chosen, and I say let us give them all they want.” Saul Alinsky, recently in the news in connection with Mrs. Clinton’s college thesis, said [“Rule” 5]: “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.”
Anyway, since we’re riding Edwards, you might get a laugh out of this, just posted on Drudge.
Now, take a look at his house.
LA replies:
As I’ve said, Edwards is a risible figure, and there are all kinds of things you can legitimately say about him to make fun of him or even ridicule him. But to use an insult like “faggot” in American public life, and then, worse, to approve of it and normalize it, degrades all of us.
Wes L. writes:
Hi, Mr. Auster. I hope you don’t mind a few comments from a fairly new reader:
1. I would not have used the term “faggot” in a public forum speech—if for no other reason, because it draws attention away from any legitimate point in the making, as the current reaction proves.
2. Ms. Coulter technically didn’t call him this name; she alluded to it, yes, but it was not a direct claim.
3. Coulter stood by her comment. In an exchange with Adam Nagourney from the NYT:
Nagourney: The three Republican presidential contenders denouncing you….Do you want to do any response?
Coulter: C’mon it was a joke. I would never insult gays by suggesting that they are like John Edwards. That would be mean. Did any of these guys say anything after I made the same remark about Al Gore last summer? Why not? What were they trying to say about Al Gore with their silence?
On the front page of her blog is this headline: AMBULANCE CHASER GETS REAR-ENDED BY ANN COULTER—I’m so ashamed, I can’t stop laughing!
Not what I’d consider a retreat.
4. “and she used her sex to get away with an insult that no man would use against another man unless he was prepared to fight.”
Perhaps face-to-face, but not through broadcast media. How many times have leftist males impugned other males on the Right with accusations of racism, “homophobia,” sexism, mindless jingoism, or a cornucopia of other smears?
5. Coulter understands that the Left wants to deconstruct our society and destroy its moral foundation and heritage, while ushering in something far worse to fill that vaccuum. Thus the contempt she shows its more visible components. I believe this website’s author understands this, as well, which is one reason why I’m a reader.
6. The Left assures us one and all that homosexuality is not only normal, but beautiful; so why is dubbing Edwards a “faggot” insulting? One either accepts this claim, or not. The Left can’t have it both ways.
LA replies:
These are not serious or grown-up arguments. They are childishness. The reader’s position comes down to saying, Democrats are bad, Democrats seek to destroy our society, Democrats call us racists and fascists, therefore let’s call Democrats “faggots.”
All that this adds up to is the same thing I’ve been criticizing through this decade, that conservatives and Republicans have become mere reactors against the left. They don’t stand for anything except for opposing the left. It’s the death of politics, the death of the intellect, the death of decency.
David H. You wrote:
“Edwards is a risible figure, and there are all kinds of things you can legitimately say about him to make fun of him or even ridicule him. But to use an insult like faggot in American public life, and then, worse, to approve of it and normalize it, degrades all of us.”
This is the most important opinion I’ve heard expressed about this event. Basically, her slur was irresponsible and juvenile. I do not think it possible to dislike Edwards more than I do, but I would have never used an insult that belittles the substance of my attack and completely obliterates any legitimate criticism in the minds of the audience. The reaction to her statement, excepting your rational, non-liberal one, has been an orgasm of liberal condemnation and opportunism, a result she should have been able to predict beforehand. Many on the “right” are using this to further alienate (and even exile) the true right (Christian traditionalists, anti-Bush’s democracy project rightists, etc.). This is their opportunity to blaze away at our “intolerance” while actually seizing the moment to further their own liberal goals for the “conservative” movement. The left (divide-and-conquer Marxists) will prod and scream in outrage to appease their base, but mostly will be content to allow the liberal “right” to distance itself from the “hateful” (i.e. true, rational) right, now symbolized (through no choice of our own) by Ann Coulter.
One result of this will be momentum for even more “hate speech” legislation, which will of course include any insult, real or imaginary, against anyone who is not a white male. Being liberal, neo- “conservatives” will find this very hard to resist. That’s how liberal America will work; serious, legitimate criticism of her foolishness (such as yours) will be ignored or suppressed. We will only hear how “hateful and damaging” her one word was (one “conservative” has already said it “scares people”), how it proves that the right wishes to kill off some anointed minority or some other equally dire revelation, how yet again white men (trust me, it will not reflect on “white women”) are racist, inbred idiots (one “right”-wing blog, Right Wing Nuthouse at , has already called those who “defend Coulter” inbred hicks, among other less intellectual names; as I said, any insult unless you’re a white male). It has already taken on the “Jerry Springer” atmosphere that, sadly, almost every facet of American politics has become.
There is so very much she could have chosen, real damning facts, in order to belittle and basically tear apart Edwards, not the least of which was his choice of the two anti-Christian, anti-male miscreants to be mouthpieces for his campaign. But no, leave it to yet another drama queen to provide liberals—left and especially “right”—another opportunity to marginalize those who, if they had actually been present, would have chosen a devastating, intelligent reproach over puerile insult.
Larry G. writes:
Evidently John Edwards belongs to that America that can’t afford a good architect.
Andrew E. writes:
Your analysis of the Coulter fiasco is spot on and witnessing so-called conservatives try to explain it away shows how deep liberalism has infiltrated into our society.
I think there is something else going on here in addition to the erosion of public decency tolerated by conservatives and that thing is intellectual laziness. As you and others have mentioned, Coulter had at her disposal a lengthy and convincing argument why Edwards is deplorable and yet she chooses to replace that argument with a single word. And it’s not just politicians and pundits who do this, EVERYONE does this. Critical thinking has been marginalized and so everyone is reduced to sloganeering and mindless banter. Liberalism, in order to succeed, must force everyone to turn off their brains (Islam works precisely the same way) so they are incapable of questioning its patent falsehoods. Before it can create a false reality it must disarm our ability to question reality and seek truth.
Most of this handy work is done when we are in grade school thus rendering us defenseless and ripe for indoctrination when we get to college or enter the working world.
I thanked David H. for his compliment he wrote back:
I believe the importance of your statement cannot be underestimated at a time when Coulter is being and will be attacked for the wrong reasons. Her stupidity has been a boon for the liberal “right” (the McCain/Giuliani wing) and I have no doubt, as good liberals, they will continue to point to her words as representative of our position. And legitimate attacks on the suicidal, terribly destructive homosexual movement will become “hate speech” even among so-called conservatives.
As you have correctly pointed out, Giuliani et al can be as ruthless as the standard leftists (if he can do that to his family…) and they will have no problem adding “homophobia” to their dirty arsenal.
Wes L. writes:
Being antagonistic isn’t my goal, here, and if I’ve come across in this fashion, I apologize; I just disagree with your take on this. I see eye-to-eye with you far more often than not. I would like to comment on a couple of things you said, though.
The reader’s position comes down to saying, Democrats are bad, Democrats seek to destroy our society, Democrats call us racists and fascists, therefore let’s call Democrats “faggots.”
It’s difficult for me to understand how you drew this conclusion, when the first point I made was that I would not have called Edwards this name. Nor did I ever use the term “Democrat” in describing these people. I said Leftist. I’m not a Republican, or a GOP supporter. This is not a Democrat/GOP issue, for me. I’m a traditionalist who believes we should return to constitutionalism and the intentions of our Founders. I think it’s also worth pointing out that the term is considered a pejorative because the Left has chosen to characterize it so. There was a time—and not very long ago—when this would have been a far less significant issue than it is, now. I think the whole situation sheds light on the normalization of destructive political correctness more than anything else.
These are not serious or grown-up arguments. They are childishness.
I think it’s interesting that you say this, while not addressing points 3,4, and 6—the first two of which were attempted specific refutations of your earlier comments.
By the way, I’m sorry I sent the first comment anonymously; that was an unintentional mistake.
LA replies:
Frankly, points 3, 4, and 6 were either irrelevant or off-base and not worth replying to. It’s really too much when people send multi-point e-mails and then complain when they don’t get a reply to every point.* I was responding to the main point, which was that the left is very nasty and destructive, and therefore there’s nothing wrong with Coulter’s language.
Also, I did comment either in this thread or elsewhere about Coulter’s passing this off as a joke, and said how wrong that was.
* In my recent discussion with Mladen from Israel (whose family is from the Soviet Union) about Giuliani, in the interests of keeping the posted exchange interesting I left out a side-point of his that we had already gone over sufficiently and then he wrote to me telling me I was behaving like a Soviet commissar suppressing debate. Another recent commenter, Henry A., wrote to me in an inquisitorial manner questioning the sincerity of my religious beliefs, all because I had made a mistake about what the Bible says about resurrection. This is the kind of behavior I open myself to by having discussions at this site.
Laura W. writes:
No need to post this as enough’s been said, but your criticism of Ann Coulter is so dead-on. The problem with her insult is it ain’t even witty. Isn’t easy, trashy wit the currency of bored adolescents? The word faggot brings back vivid memories of the sort of casual cruelty I remember from the hallways of junior high. I loathe the word! I despise it! It reminds me of braces, pimples and sadism!
Derek C. writes:
In Mike Judge’s latest movie, Idiocracy, one of the signs of society’s intellectual decline is that the protagonist is called “faggy” for speaking in complete sentences. It is sad not only to see a prominent conservative writer acting like an Idiocrat, but being applauded for it by an allegedly socially conservative audience.
Kevin O. writes from England:
On the subject of Ann Coulter’s CPAC talk, I think it was better not to participate in the subsequent conservative “kerfuffle”, as Rush Limbaugh rightly described it. Your criticism of her choice of words is rare in actually being based in principle rather than appeasement of Liberals, but I think not mentioning it at all—except perhaps to criticise the apparent lynching of Miss Coulter—would have shown a better sense of proportion. For example, in a recent posting on VFR you dismissed the late Anna Nicole Smith as a “desperate whore” in a paragraph which also included the word “bimbo” and which generally questioned why she should be an object of “great fascination”. I find it hard to distinguish this phraseology from Miss Coulter’s peremptory dismissal of John Edwards as a serious presidential candidate. (I have seen far worse written about the current British Conservative Party leader by serious commentators angrily frustrated with his apparently trivial attitude to politics.)
LA replies:
To say that my description, in a blog, of Anna Nicole as a “desperate whore” and a “bimbo” cannot be distinguished from Coulter’s description, at a political conference broadcast on national television, of a presidential candidate as a “faggot” shows a loss of perspective.
Anna Nicole slept with more men than she could keep count of and spent her life preening before photographers trying to look as whorish as she could possibly do. That was the way she advertized herself to the world. She made herself a supreme figure of trash culture. She did everything she could be the very embodiment of bimbohood, to a comical degree. That’s what’s she’s famous for, for heaven’s sake. To call her a whore and bimbo is no more objectionable than, say, calling John McCain a senator—it’s simply a statement of fact.
Edwards is a candidate for president of the U.S., and also happens to be a married man with children.
Please, let’s keep a sense of proportion here.
LA continues:
Another difference: my comments about Anna Nicole were made in the context of a discussion of the ANS phenomenon. I was asking why people were so fascinated by her. Coulter’s comment about Edwards had no content; it was pure name-calling.
Kevin O. replies:
First of all, I would just like to say that I am not out to condemn anyone here. My concern is that I think Ann Coulter is being unfairly treated.
It seems your primary objection is that Coulter was making a defamatory statement. (I assume this from the reference to “married man with children”.) This is not how I understood it, although I will admit that “faggot” is not a term in common usage in England in that sense. I understood her to mean that Edwards is effeminate. It is interesting that in your posting you compare Mr. Edwards to Truman Capote. Given that I do not perceive any facial resemblance between the two, is there a chance that you are using a proper noun to make the same point that Miss Coulter made using, as she put it, a “schoolyard taunt”?
Also, in the Anna Nicole posting, you used the term “bimbo” to refer to Fox News commentators, apparently including a “former prosecutor”, rather than Miss Smith herself. (Is a former prosecutor less worthy of respect than a presidential candidate?) You also wrote that these commentators “seem like desperate whores themselves”. Again I would assume that you are using “whore” in a different sense here, just as I did with Miss Coulter’s indirect use of the word “faggot”. (I emphasise indirect here because to directly call him a “faggot” would not have been witty in any way.)
As regards Smith herself, if one wanted to be particularly critical—and this is the big “if” that concerns me here—I think the fact that Smith has died means that our primary concern should be to pray for her soul. (Just as one might question Coulter’s choice of venue for her joke, one might also question whether it is appropriate to speak ill of the dead.) We can factually say that Smith was promiscuous, and that that was wrong—though only God can know what went on in her heart—but “desperate whore” can read like a damning verdict of a human being. At the same time, I did not feel the need to raise this when you made the posting, just as I do not believe that the reaction to Ann Coulter is merited on her part.
LA replies:
Kevin O’s basic assumption is as follows: All criticism, all rough talk, all mockery, all ridicule, and all fighting words, are all on the same level and are all equally objectionable. If I object to someone giving a public speech on television calling a presidential candidate a “faggot,” then I also must refrain from using critical or strong or mocking language about anyone, in any setting, anywhere. For example, according to Kevin’s reasoning, I cannot on this website refer to the obvious “bimbo” element on FOX News and other cable news stations. I cannot make fun of Edwards’s delivery of his acceptance speech line, “We will destroy you.”
I reject this view completely. To deny that there are distinctions between different degrees and kinds of critical or negative speech would lead us either to ban all strong language in all situations, which would be the death of liberty, or to permit all abusive language in all situations, which would deliver us to cultural barbarism.
For example, to suggest that there was something fey or effeminate in the way Edwards said “We will destroy you,” is not the same as calling Edwards a faggot. There is speech which is critical or mocking but which does not strip the dignity from the person one is speeking about. I did not strip away Edwards’s dignity as a human being by saying what I said. I made fun of the way he said one particular line. But to call Edwards a faggot is to deny his dignity as a man. It is cruel and demeaning in a way that “bimbo,” for example, is not.
None of this means, by the way, that I cannot be criticized for my own language and my tough criticisms of people. But even I agreed for the sake of discussion that some of my own language that Kevin objects to was objectionable, my language was still not in the same class as Coulter’s.
One reason Kevin may not grasp these distinctions is that, as he points out, he is not familiar with “faggot” as a derogatory expression. The word apparently has a much milder connotation in England. In America it is an insulting term for a homosexual. In America one man does not call another man a faggot unless he is prepared to fight him or to destroy him in the eyes of others. That’s why Coulter’s use of the word was particularly objectionable, since as a woman she can get away with it. It is, by the way, another example of the deleterious effect of women entering areas of life where they essentially don’t belong. Men inherently have a sense of fair play and a respect for other men and a sense of limits on their own speech that women tend not to have.
Alan Levine writes:
Am in agreement with you a la Coulter, and on the general issue of childish name-calling.
But I do have one reservation. It may be a serious mistake to treat an statement that is a deliberate lie as if it were merely an honest disagreement. i.e., when liberals or leftists say something we know is untrue, and we know THEY must know is untrue, they should be called out on it, and not treated with overcivility.
I say this with some feeling, as the historical profession has been badly injured by just that thing in dealing with the lies of the left over the past 40 years.
LA replies:
What Alan says is quite apart from the issue of indecent speech. But I agree entirely.
The other week I was talking with a liberal acquaintance, a New York lawyer who is the kind of person who feels that liberals are identical to the truth and conservatives are ignorant bigots, and he started on Plamegate and Libby, and he was so out of it he actually believed that this was about an attempt to “get back” at Wilson, i.e., the same nonsense that was nonsense three years ago and was totally exploded officially in the last year. And he didn’t know any of this. So after we went back and forth a few times, and he wasn’t moving, I said to him, using a characterization that liberals never dream applies to themselves: “Liberals are just ignorant and bigoted on this issue.” He said, “Well, that means that I’m ignorant and bigoted.” And I said, “Yes.”
When liberals don’t know what they’re talking about, when they are subscribing to lies this vicious, I think we should just drop civility and blast them apart.
Paul K. writes:
In addition to its vulgarity, Coulter’s jab at Edwards was uninspired and meaningless. A good insult, one capable of deflating its victim, has to be memorable and specific. After Alice Longworth Roosevelt observed that Thomas Dewey, with his slicked back hair and pencil mustache, “looked like the groom on top of a wedding cake,” it was difficult to look at him without that vivid image coming to mind.
The British have a knack for this. I think of the member of parliament who said to an opponent, who was extremely thin, “The honorable gentleman is like a pin, but with neither its head nor its point.”
While Buckley had reason to be ashamed of stooping to the level of Gore Vidal, at least he had the excuse of speaking in the midst of a heated exchange. Coulter prepared her remarks in advance, and this is the best she could do?
Wes L. writes:
My recent experience discussing with you the matter of Ann Coulter’s controversial statement leads me to conclude that you have an underdeveloped sense of fair play.
First, you insult me by dismissing specific, relevant arguments as “childishness”—without rebutting them.
Second, you accuse me of “complaining,” when I point out this behavior.
Third, you choose artificially to have the final word on the matter, by refusing to post my last email comment in defense of my remarks, which leaves your most recent response to me standing unchallenged.
And fourth, you continue repeating some of the same arguments I refuted—in the same post—such as when you responded to Kevin O. thusly, in the “Coulter and Edwards” discussion: In America one man does not call another man a faggot unless he is prepared to fight him or to destroy him in the eyes of others. That’s why Coulter’s use of the word was particularly objectionable, since as a woman she can get away with it.
You still haven’t refuted—or even addressed, for that matter—my comments regarding this assertion. You know as well as I that character assassinations far worse than this perceived example happen regularly—from man to man—in public forums. Your suggesting otherwise is bizarre, to say the least, and demonstrably wrong. You also seem oblivious to the fact that Coulter hasn’t gotten away with it, by any stretch of the imagination. She has met vociferous, public condemnation from the Left and the Right—including the withdrawal of advertisers from her website, and the dropping of her column from at least one newspaper.
I know very little about the slights and attacks you’ve mentioned receiving from pundits and other columnists, in the past; perhaps you’ve endured shoddy, unjust treatment. But I do know that if you’ve engaged them with the same tactics and unrepentant tactlessness exhibited toward me, you’ve earned their malice.
LA replies:
I’m sorry, I receive many e-mails, and when lot of e-mails come in, and they have many numbered points, and points referring to earlier points, then further e-mails complaining that I haven’t replied to all the earlier points, and those subsequent e-mails also have numbered points, and I’m expected to reply to all of them regardless of how valid they are and all of this takes time and energy, not everything may get replied to. I think I did post your e-mail of March 6 at 1:38 a.m. with its six points. Then you complained that I didn’t reply to all of your points. I replied to that complaint as I remember.
I’m sorry for saying that your arguments were childishness. I shouldn’t have done that. However, (1) I wasn’t just speaking of your arguments, but of this entire approach which many people, not just you, have taken. (2) I did rebut your argument. I said: “The reader’s position comes down to saying, Democrats are bad, Democrats seek to destroy our society, Democrats call us racists and fascists, therefore let’s call Democrats ‘faggots.’”
Your original point three, which you seem to set great store by, was incoherent. That is why I did not reply to it. Yet then you wrote again, complaining that I did not reply to your point three. I replied by saying that points three, four and six were not worth replying to. But that wasn’t enough for you. So let’s look at it again:
3. Coulter stood by her comment. In an exchange with Adam Nagourney from the NYT:
Nagourney: The three Republican presidential contenders denouncing you….Do you want to do any response?
Coulter: C’mon it was a joke. I would never insult gays by suggesting that they are like John Edwards. That would be mean. Did any of these guys say anything after I made the same remark about Al Gore last summer? Why not? What were they trying to say about Al Gore with their silence?
On the front page of her blog is this headline: AMBULANCE CHASER GETS REAR-ENDED BY ANN COULTER—I’m so ashamed, I can’t stop laughing!
Not what I’d consider a retreat.
First you say she “stood by her point.” Then you point out that she said it was a joke. Then you reference a further joke she made. Then you say she has not retreated.
It is not possible to determine any coherent meaning in all this. That is why I did not reply to it. Do you understand now?
And this is your problem: not only do you send multi-point e-mails, but some of the points, like your point three, consists of several statements which do not fit with each other.
So let me suggest this. When writing comments to a discussion, keep it simple. Make one or at most two points at a time. Do not make six points in a busy discussion, with sub-points to your main points, and expect a reply to all of them, and then complain that you’re being treated unfairly if you don’t get a reply to everything you have said.
Now if you want to write back with a concise statement of why I’m wrong about Coulter, please do so.
Posted by Lawrence Auster at March 05, 2007 07:26 PM | Send
|