When I read Ann's heartfelt tribute to the passing of her father, I was of course not shocked at her characterization of him.

She certainly did not fall far from his tree. 

But I also knew, with certainty, that the liberals who despise her would soon make sport of it. something I equally certain she expected.

I was right:

Whether it’s Tony Snow’s cancer, the comparative good intentions of Hitler and Stalin, or the urgent need for a military coup, no one does “satire” like HuffPo. How bad is this one? So bad that even the blogosphere’s most notorious comment section is put off by it, although stick with the debate long enough and you’ll see it ends up where all progressive line-crossing eventually does, in a contest between the self-congratulatory “I’m tired of being morally superior to the wingnuts” and the equally self-congratulatory “we must remain morally superior to the wingnuts.” I didn’t read to the end but I’m pretty sure it ends in a draw.

So how bad is it really?  A few excerpts:

Ann Coulter Kills at Her Father's Funeral

Ann Coulter's father John died last week, and this week she honored his memory with a column containing not one, but two Ted Kennedy jokes. I know I'd be proud.

Note:  I am almost certain her dad would have been, from her description.  Moving on...

Such is a daughter's grief. Think of her, then, as Ophelia with her violetless garlands, crossed with a real fucking hack.

But where's the Hillary material? Come on. It's right in front of you, Ann -- dad's dead... Hillary cries... you do the math.

Clearly, Ann's not at the top of her game. So I've taken the liberty of going through the eulogy -- cutting the Kennedy material -- and punching up the rest.

The longest baby ever born at the Albany, N.Y., hospital, at least as of May 5, 1926, who grew up to be my strapping father, passed away last Friday morning.

Ann Coulter versus Alan Colmes on her Comments about Jews.  I post this not because Ann is a great theologian, but because Ann is a fighter.

Ann was pressed by Alan on her anti Semitic comments and he attempted to toss off a an underhanded insult about 4 minutes into this.

What I like is that Ann will have none of his condescension.  About 1 minute left in the clips she reverses the attack, and pins him to the wall.

In other words, she fought back instead of accepting the insult.

Whether she is on sound doctrinal footing or not in the classic Christian v Judaism debate is not relevant, what is relevant is that she believes what she does and defends it.

In a world where many Christians defer to political correctness and soft sell, I find anyone who stands firm somewhat invigorating.   I may not always agree with her, but I have to respect her passion.

And I wish more conservatives would take a page from her book (no pun intended) and stop making nice and fight for their beliefs.  Too often the liberals win by default when the conservatives fall back on sensibility and politeness.

Maybe that is the path of moral authority in some cases, but in others it is surrendering without a shot being fired.

Clip courtesy of Hot Air.

One of my all time favorite TV shows is the 80's and 90's sitcom Roseanne.

Roseanne when it came out could have been a portrait of my life.  At the time I was not well off financially, and was dealing with a lot of stress and unhappiness with laughter and sarcasm.

It was one of the first sitcoms to portray what life for most working class people was like:  A struggle with highs and lows. It also, as Roseanne Barr notes in her DVD commentary, clearly showcases the disconnect in class in America.

But.  One of the things I do struggle with is Roseanne herself, the actress, the comedienne and the activist.

I perused her blog and was shocked at how she can flip from crazy to wacky in no time at all.

Here are some examples from Roseanne World.   WARNING:  EXTREME LANGUAGE AHEAD

On Anne Coulter:

Ann Coulter

She serves a purpose, and a part of that is disturbing. When any woman with opinions speaks up - including Anne (the mouthpiece for Aryan womanhood) - she is the victim of verbal sexual assault. Her genitals and sexuality are gleefully insulted: she has an Adam's apple, she likes getting fucked in the ass... This is wrong in any case, even hers. It demeans all women to do it. She can be debated intelligently, and if she would allow me that, I would be honored to do it, as I think she makes some valid points about the failures of the left in this country.

http://www.roseanneworld.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=5192

A clear thinking, fair rational piece.  Now flip to:

Ann Coulter's Anti-Semitism

The ultimate state of the perfection of Jews: they are all dead.

This is what is actually in the minds of Bush/Cheney and all Christians of the right who run this country, and ironically, are the major supporters of the state of Israel's ride to ruin which is coming very quickly.

Those who read here often know I like Ann Coulter.  She is frank and harsh but more often then not, right on the mark when she goes after the liberals in America.

But not infallible, as this piece shows.  In this article she attacks people who dislike the front runners (Guliani and Romney) for not being conservative enough and are gravitating to Mike Huckabee and Fred Thompson.

I admit that neither of these two are flashy and they are certainly not neo cons, but they are often solid and sensible, and do reflect conservative values.  I think that she is missing that in her desire to promote a hardline conservative candidate. 

And in Thompson's case, her dislike of him is centrally based on his vote in the Clinton impeachment, and in my opinion, she is cutting off her nose to spite her face.

Fred Sawyer and Huckabee Finn

Conservatives unhappy with our Republican presidential candidates seem to be drifting aimlessly toward Fred Thompson and Mike Huckabee in the misguided belief that these candidates are more conservative than Rudy Giuliani and Mitt Romney. This is like breaking up with Bobby Brown so you can date Phil Spector.

On illegal immigration, Huckabee makes George Bush sound like Tom Tancredo. He has compared illegal aliens to slaves brought here in chains from Africa, saying, "I think frankly the Lord is giving us a second chance to do better than we did before."

...

Huckabee also joined with impeached president Bill Clinton in a campaign against childhood obesity. What, O.J. wasn't available?

Question:  Was childhood obesity a valid issue or not?

Bill and Mike's excellent adventure lasted about one week in May 2005 -- or just long enough to burnish the image of the president who committed perjury and obstruction of justice in a civil rights suit against him, molested the help and was credibly accused of rape by Juanita Broaddrick.

Here comes her agenda.

I am pushing the limits of fair use, but this is just too good to hack up too much.

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=57609

From the halls of Malibu tto the shores of Kennedy

Democrats claim Gen. David Petraeus' report to Congress on the surge was a put-up job with a pre-ordained conclusion. As if their response wasn't.

Democrats yearn for America to be defeated on the battlefield and oppose any use of the military – except when they ccan find individual malcontents in the military willing to denounce the war aand call for a humiliating retreat.

It's been the same naysaying from these people since before we even  invaded Iraq – despite the fact that their representatives in Congress voted in favor of that war.

Mark Bowden, author of "Black Hawk Down," warned Americans in the Aug. 330, 2002, Los Angeles Times of 60,000 to 100,000 dead American troops if we invaded Iraq – comparing an Iraq war to Vietnam and a Russian battlee in Chechnya.

...

On Sept. 14, 2002, the New York Times' Frank Rich warned of another al-Qaida attack in the U.S. if we invaded Iraq, noting that since "major al-Qaida attacks are planned well in advance and have historically been separated by intervals of 12 to 24 months, we will find out how much we've been distracted soon enough."

This week makes it six years since a major al-Qaida attack. I guess we weren't distracted. But it looks like al-Qaida has been.

...

But liberals soon began raising yet more pointless quibbles. For most of 2003, they said the war was a failure because we hadn't captured Saddam Hussein. Then we captured Saddam, and Democratic presidential candidate Howard Dean complained that "the capture of Saddam has not made America safer."

...

Next, liberals said the war was a failure because we hadn't captured Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. Then we killed al-Zarqawi and a half-dozen of his aides in an air raid. Then they said the war was a failure because ... you get the picture.

The Ann and Liz show continues and as usual people spend most of the time accusing Ann of saying things she did not say.  Take this link for example, where they gleefully chortle that:

Ann Coulter Loses It, Calls Elizabeth Edwards A "Harridan"

Except she didn't call Edwards anything.

Yes, she is upset, and when the left continually misrepresents you it has to be frustrating.  But she did not call any specific person a harridan, she made a unspecific reference to being attacked by Harridans.  No where did she point a finger, and Liz is not the only female to challenge her, so this is more grandstanding.

Newsmax has more:

 Furious Ann Coulter Strikes Back

An obviously angry Ann Coulter this morning ripped into critics who deliberately distorted her comments about former senator and presidential hopeful John Edwards.

After a relentless 24-hour firestorm during which much of the mainstream media used selective quotes to mangle the meaning of several of Ann’s comments about Edwards, Coulter set the record straight while talking with Joe Scarborough host of MSNBC’s "Morning Joe” program.

Coulter told Scarborough:

"I’ve never seen people avoid ideas so much in such an obvious way and try to alert Americans not to read anything, not to listen to something someone said — not because of what someone is saying, but to try to portray her as a Nazi. This happens every time I put a book out and I’m getting a little bored with it . . .”

She further explained that she never wished John Edwards would die. She simply said on "Good Morning America" on June 25 that Bill Maher had wished the death of Vice President Cheney by terrorist attack and got away with it, so perhaps if she wanted to avoid criticism in the future while mentioning Edwards, she should say the same thing.

"Oh yeah, I wouldn’t insult gays by comparing them to John Edwards,” Coulter said on "Good Morning America." "That would be mean. But about the same time — you know — Bill Maher was not joking and saying he wished Dick Cheney had been killed in a terrorist attack. So I’ve learned my lesson. If I’m going to say anything about John Edwards in the future, I’ll just wish he had been killed in a terrorist assassination plot.”

Heh!

I hate saying I told you so, but I did.  In all my posts, comments and responses to Ann faggot joke, I have consistently maintained she was making an attempted joke using the Greys Anatomy star Isaiah Washington's rehab for saying fag as her barb against political correctness.  I understood the context, even if it was so obscure it fell flat and bombed.

Ann appeared and defended her remarks on Hannity and Colmes tonight and validated my analysis.  Democrat Pat Caddell even got it.   He also gets the money quote by noting that people take this stuff too seriously.

Ann's only disconnect is that she just didn't think it (her joke) bombed, but what comedian likes to admit they bombed? 

Video is at Hot Air. Here is a poor quality You Tube version. The video is shakey, but the audio is clear.

A summary:

Ann Coulter appeared on Hannity & Colmes tonight, her first television presence since making her infamous “faggot” remark at CPAC last week. Coulter said she used “faggot” in the context of “wuss” and added it was a “schoolyard taunt” and a “sophomoric” joke. Hannity brought up all the names Ann has been called over the years. One of the left’s favorites seems to be “Man Coulter.” Haha, get it?

Democrat Pat Caddell, certainly not a “Fox News liberal”, thought Ann was joking. To be honest, I don’t think Ann’s remark was anti-gay, I really don’t. I do think the remark was hurtful and shouldn’t have been used, though. The panel brought up words Democrats have used in the past, including Senator Dick Durbin’s infamous comparison of the US military’s treatment to detainees at Gitmo to Nazis, Soviet gulags and Cambodia’s Pol Pot.

Exit question: What’s worse: John Kerry calling our troops dumb or Ann Coulter’s use of “faggot.”

Whenever I see a post on Memeorandum, and I see equal numbers of liberal and conservative bloggers referenced, I get nervous.  Seeing such unity should be a good thing, but while I trust the motives of many conservatives to be at least marginally altruistic, I do not trust the likes of HuffPo or Wonkette to be anything of the sort, and if they team up with conservatives, it is because they see a way to slap the conservatives down.

Such is the case of Ann Coulter.  Leaving the content of her remarks aside, and if you are curious, I blogged my thoughts several times previously, the big issue now is what to do about what she said.

As she spoke only for herself, I have no need to do anything but blog and behave in a manner that represents my true values.  Neither does any other blogger on the face of the earth, including Ann.  

And I appreciate how so many conservatives took time to condemn her remarks.  But it should end there, end with her rebuke by her peers.  Instead the conservatives are planning a boycott of Ann from speaking at the next CPAC:

CPAC sponsors, the Age of Ann has passed. We, the undersigned, request that CPAC speaking invitations no longer be extended to Ann Coulter. Her words and attitude simply do too much damage.

I will not sign it.  Nor will I link to it beyond this quote.  Why?

Because they are doing it for the wrong reasons.

If you feel offended by her remarks, and think they were wrong, stand up and say so.  Deal with it on the merits of it.  Speak against it and move on. 

Instead we are seeing it being condemned , not solely for its moral qualities, for the right and wrong of it, but for the impact on all conservatives, for the damaged to CPAC and to conservatism.

And in that, my conservative friends, is pandering to the left and giving them a win.

The outcry has continued against Coulter, and I am not surprised.  The left and the right often combine their forces against her when she decides to push the envelope.

But likewise I am unsurprised that the left continues to ignore the outrageousness of the left, notably Bill Maher.  His comment that if Cheney had died, less people would die is simple foolish, yet no one on the left cares.  Granted some on the right  are over reaching, and have implied he wants to kill Cheney which is not true. But the silence on the left is typical.

Fellow NW Blogger Andrew's Dad made this observation:

Sorry… I can not make the jump from what he said to he wants the Vice President assassinated.  It is just not there. 

In fact I will go one step further… Bill Maher is right.  More people would be alive if Dick Cheney were to die or at least was not part of the executive office of the United States of America.  But here is what nobody is saying, those people who would be alive, the vast majority of them would be actively working to kill Americans or at a minimum would prefer to see Americans die and therefore we as Americans are better off with them dead.  Thank you Vice President Cheney

Heh.  Yea, Maher really was right and had no idea. 

But As much as I like the tongue and cheek aspect of this, the implication of Maher comment still remains, that Cheney being dead would be a good thing.  It may not be calling for his assassination, but it is a bit outrageous. 

As I observe all this, all the fuss in all corners, and it just puzzles me how people do not see their own hypocrisy.

Take Jester, a commenter on my Maher post.

He began by challenging me on what Maher said, accusing me of misquoting him: