As far as Coulter’s out of the left field “faggot” remark goes — it may have been a poor choice of words but further Atlas investigation reveals John Edwards campaign has a mostly gay staff and rumors about his sexuality are rife. Just for knowing.

The fact is if there is any true to these rumors, that perhaps Edwards is gay, shouldn’t we know that? Shouldn’t we know if this man is deceiving his wife, children, country and living a lie? Shouldn’t we know if a man that represents the party that celebrates gay rights is so ashamed of it, he lives a ginormous lie? Regardless of your position on gay marriage, regardless of whether you celebrate or merely tolerate the gay lifestyle, we ought to know if John Edwards is a liar and a hypocrite.

Pam and Little Debbie Schussel are the face of Conservatism – LOL.

If she’s invited back to the ACU convention next year, are there repercussions for the GOP? Should there be?

Rudy McRomney have condemned the remarks, but I don’t think they’re done having to react to Coultermania. I’d like to think outfits like Time/Warner aren’t either but they’ll probably slide by without many people noticing their roles in the promotion of Coultermania. Fox News, of course, won’t change at all.

IMO, Coultermania is more the story than Coulter herself. There are flamers everywhere, but few who are as prominent and even fewer who are as rich. A lot of people dig Ann Coulter, and I would bet damned few of those dig her even a little bit less now.

Of course, being the nasty leftwinger I am, I’m hoping more and more independent voters see every vote for any Republican as a tiny contribution to Coultermania that seemed insignificant enough before but has gotten to be a little too much now.

Yes, there are leftwingers who spew bile and are rich and prominent. But unlike Coulter, they aren’t rich and prominent because they spew bile, in whatever fashion. That’s Coultermania–a thirst for this kind of bile shared not by a few lunatics but by otherwise respectable organizations like the ACU, and by enough other benighted citizens to make Ann Coulter rich and lend her prestige, even to where she appeared on the cover of Time Magazine, whose editors arguably saw a chance for a share of the riches and prestige.

Ann, of course, hopes the story continues to be about herself, but I hope the story evolves to where it includes the many who are willingly allowing themselves to be pulled down with her, not to mention all the rest of us who are pulled down as long as she and hers aren’t marginalized to where the ACU wouldn’t think of ever having her back.

That’s the problem; ideologues on both sides make it into an issue of “Nobody’s going to tell me what we can or can’t say”. That puts the focus on the first amendment issue; that we shouldn’t censor. It becomes compelling to want to defend people even if you think they’ve gone too far. But normal people understand that there’s a difference between saying that someone CAN’T say something and that they SHOULDN’T say it. A difference between whether people ought to be allowed to say outrageous incendiary things and whether they ought to say them.

Now saying that f—-t isn’t a slur against gays is hillarious. Yeah, and n—r isn’t a slur against blacks is it hon? I’d wonder about whether she’d use that term for Obama but then, she probably would.