I stopped listening to her remarks on talk shows and reading her columns about 2 years ago when I found her schtick to be just as despicable as that of extreme Left nutjobs. Coulter’s remarks on the Today Show with Matt Lauer were so over-the-top that I cannot understand why anyone even pays attention to her anymore:

LAUER: On the 9-11 widows, and in particular a group that had been critical of the administration:

[quoting from Coulter's new book] “These self-obsessed women seem genuinely unaware that 9-11 was an attack on our nation and acted like as if the terrorist attack only happened to them. They believe the entire country was required to marinate in their exquisite personal agony. Apparently, denouncing bush was part of the closure process.”

And this part is the part I really need to talk to you about:

“These broads are millionaires, lionized on TV and in articles about them, reveling in their status as celebrities and stalked by griefparrazies. I have never seen people enjoying their husband’s death so much.” Because they dare to speak out?

COULTER: To speak out using the fact they are widows. This is the left’s doctrine of infallibility. If they have a point to make about the 9-11 commission, about how to fight the war on terrorism, how about sending in somebody we are allowed to respond to> No-No-No. We always have to respond to someone who just had a family member die–

LAUER: But aren’t they in the middle of the story?…

COULTER: …Because then if we respond, oh you are questioning their authenticity. No, the story is…

LAUER: So grieve but grieve quietly? What I’m saying is I don’t think they have ever told you, you can’t respond.

COULTER: Look, you are getting testy with me.

Outside the Beltway has a link to the video excerpt from this interview.

She seems to have a desperate need for attention and feeds this by being more outrageous each time she opens her mouth. Why that’s the very thing I despise about the Looney Left. The irony here is that I myself would probably criticize the women Coulter speaks about, but to accuse them of “enjoying their husband’s death”? No, this is just as reprehensible as the blather from the Kossacks and their mentor in lunacy, Michael Moore.

Hat tip: Ace of Spades

UPDATE (from GPW): This is not the first time this blog has taken on Ms. Coulter. Just over a year ago, I noted that even some conservatives find her media persona hard to take.

Well, it must be so…. CNN is reporting it after all! (h/t: TimBlair)

Based on average scores, northwestern states generally ranked highest while the bottom-ranking states were mostly in the northeast. One exception was Vermont, which ranked third. Washington state drivers ranked second. Drivers in New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts and the District of Columbia ranked at the bottom, with D.C. finishing just ahead of Rhode Island.

Bottom Ten = Stupidest Drivers:

42. Pennsylvania 82.1

43. New Mexico 81.5

44. Connecticut 80.9

45. Hawaii 80.7

46. Maryland 79.5

47. New York 79.4

48. New Jersey 78.6 (Tie)

48. Massachusetts 78.6 (Tie)

50. Washington, D.C. 76.5

51. Rhode Island 75.1

From personal experience, I can also say with confidence that some of America’s worst drivers are in this list of stupidest drivers (*cough* Maryland *cough*).  Maybe there’s a connection?

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

WIth a 49-48 vote to close debate on the Marriage Protection Amendment in the Senate, the Senate effectively defeated this amendment. Falling 11 votes short of the 60 needed for cloture, there will not be an up-or-down vote on the issue. Republicans McCain (AZ), Specter (PA), Sununu (NH), Snowe and Collins (ME), Chafee (RI) and Gregg (NH) voted against cloture. In addition a number of Republicans who voted for cloture likely would have opposed the Amendment itself had it come up for an up-or-down vote.

While I basically agree with Glenn Reynolds that this was a “pander,” I think it was a pander that, by promoting debate, could have had positive consequences. In a similar vein, Captain Ed called the president’s effort on the MPA “baldly partisan and completely superfluous,” but did point out that some “may get excited by the debate.” (Thanks to a reader for alerting me to that post.)

Alas, that there was little serious debate to get excited about. As I noted previously, my hopes of a good debate on this important issue were dashed almost from the moment the Senate took up the amendment. And it wasn’t just the social conservatives making sanctimonious arguments about the threats to marriage. Too many on the left (and even a few in the middle) used the debate as another excuse to bash President Bush, suggesting that the debate itself was a waste of time. As Stephen Miller put it on the Independent Gay Forum:

the response of even those Democrats and moderate Republicans voting against it—i.e., suggesting the topic itself is unworthy of debate—is also indefensible. What a display of gay political impotence all round, and a missed opportunity to make a positive case for the principle of equality (or even something closer to equality, such as civil unions)

Because I believe this is the most significant social issue facing our community, I am delighted that it is, at least for a few weeks, getting the national attention it deserves. Unfortunately (as I’ve said many times before) even advocates of gay marriage have not taken advantage of this attention to promote a serious discussion of this important topic, preferring to insult rather than engage their adversaries.

Despite the absence of debate this time, I remained committed to promoting discussion of this important issue. In a post on Friday, I mentioned that “I had hoped to do a series of posts . . . on gay marriage.” Although I was unable to do that before the Senate debate, I will attempt to do so in the coming days. I have recently consolidated some of my notes on the topic and have listed (below the jump) some issues I expect to address.

Just because the Senate has defeated (for now) this pernicious proposal does not mean we should stop debating this important issue. Indeed, we need to keep talking about the meaning of marriage, both in terms of gay culture and society at large. On this, I agree with the social conservatives. If only we could engage them in a real debate, with sincere recognition of the serious arguments on both sides.

-Dan (AKA GayPatriotWest): GayPatriotWest@aol.com

(more…)

**UPDATE** – Link to transcript finally fixed!! 

Wow.  I just read the full transcript of Hugh Hewitt’s interview with Mary Cheney (thanks Dan for posting it!), and I felt it was so powerful that I wanted to do my own posting about it.

Ladies and gentlemen, read this transcript and you will understand a lot more about why I am a gay Republican, proud of it, and secure enough in who I am to continue participating in Republican politics and try to make change.

Mary Cheney is truly a game-changing individual.  In Hugh’s interview (and in her book), Mary describes the John Kerry/John Edwards sneering debate references to her being a “lezzzzzbian” (the tone of Kerry saying the word that night is, ahem, seared into my memory). 

I remember thinking after that debate that it would be ironic if Mary Cheney (an ”out” lesbian) helped Bush win re-election because of how stupidly exploitative the Kerry and Edwards campaign handled her relationship with her family. 

Hey look….I actually wrote those exact words back at the time!  Maybe I should start measuring all the times I am right about things, though I doubt I could reach Rush Limbaugh’s 98.5% threshold. 

Mary Cheney: Poster Child of the GOP’s “Big Tent” – Oct. 15, 2004 - GayPatriot

Wouldn’t be ironic and quite delicious if the disrespect that Kerry and Edwards both showed to Mary Cheney and the belittling of her family’s love and personal acceptance becomes the final nail in the Democrats’ shrill coffin of the 2004 campaign?

But what I found most striking about her interview with Hewitt is how not a lot of time is spent on the “controversy” of Mary being a lesbian.  In fact, it is just accepted by Hugh.  Instead, much more interesting behind-the-campaign stories are told that having nothing to do with Mary’s sexual orientation. 

Could it be that conservatives accept gays and lesbians for who they are inside their hearts and minds, and don’t care who they sleep with?  (*brain starting to hurt as this conflicts with my Gay Doctrine Handbook*)  Frankly, it is refreshing but not surprising to me.  Character still counts with Americans (and conservatives) no matter what your sexual preference.

It is also quite refreshing that a strong supporter of the MPA (Hewitt) can have a rational and sensible debate with an MPA opponent (Cheney).  Patrick, Joe, Matt — maybe you could learn something from Mr. Hewitt?

I want to close with this exchange between Hugh and Mary:

HH: It was also interesting to me that you made the argument that while the FMA was a big issue for you, and one on which you deeply disagree with President Bush, it was not as important as the War On Terror, and that therefore, it could not trump, even in your eyes. Now I support the federal marriage amendment, but have you changed in your way of thinking about that at all, in terms of what is the priority issue?

MC: No, I don’t see how I could. We are still a nation at war. There are still people in the world who want to hurt this country, and there are still terrorists in the world. All you have to do is look at what happened in Canada over this past weekend. And when you live in that kind of a world, you don’t have the option, I don’t think, of being a single issue voter on the issue of same sex marriage, whatever your position on it is. And when push came to shove, I didn’t have the luxury of voting solely on that issue, or of working on a campaign solely based on that issue.

Unfortunately for most gay Americans… the Gay Street Lobby has made our community “the new abortion” in America – a highly divisive political football that only has extremists on either side battling forever to neither of their satisfaction.

I’m firmly in the middle, and am not (nor ever have been) a one-issue gay voter.  I am an American voter above all else.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

Republican Bilbray Defeats Democrat Busby in California’s 50th
Schwarzenegger to Face Angelides

As I head to bed, it appears that Tuesday’s elections brought some moderately good news for the GOP. With over three-quarters of the vote counted (at post time), California’s Proposition 82, AKA the Reiner Initiative, is losing by a substantial margin. Governor Schwarzenegger will face Democrat Phil Angelides in the fall. In recent polls, Schwarzenegger has had held wider margins over Angelides than he did over the Democratic nominee’s more charismatic opponent Steve Westley. My man Ahnuld thus looks like a better bet for reelection.

In Alabama, Governor Bob Riley easily defeated a “Ten Commandments Judge” Roy Moore, indicating that the GOP will likely hold onto to the Governor’s mansion in the Heart of Dixie. Even in the Deep South, Republicans prefer competent executives over grandstanding social conservatives.

In the most watched race of the night, the special election in California’s 50th congressional district to replace disgraced former Rep Randy “Duke” Cunningham. Republican Brian Bilbray has defeated Democrat Francine Busby. As I write this, with 90% of the votes counted, he leads her by a margin of 49.49 – 45.24%. Independent William Griffith backed by the Minutemen has about 5%. The Busby campaign’s radio spots and phone banks urging conservatives to vote for Griffith in order to siphon votes from Bilbray may have reduced Bilbray’s margin of victory, but they did not cost the Republican the election.

That Democrat Busby could run only one point ahead of John Kerry’s 2004 share of the vote in this district, despite the baggage Bilbray carried as a lobbyist, suggest that while Democrats have a chance of picking up enough seats this fall to take the House of Representatives, it’s not a done deal.

On the whole a pretty good night for Republicans. We hold onto a congressional seat in the Golden State where a budget-busting ballot proposition was easily defeated. And GOP Governors in California and Alabama are in good shape to hold their seats.

UPDATE: Over at Democracy Project, Bruce Kesler who lives in California’s 50th, writes, “The Democrats’ defeat is even more than it appears.” He thinks Busby’s 45% “is the max for a Democrat even in national races in this Republican leaning district” and notes that she lost although “statewide ballot issues and Governor primary” brought out more Democratic voters. Bruces offers a good rundown of the election, with an update noting how former House Speaker Newt Gingrich agrees with him. So, rather than paraphrase the rest of his insightful piece, I’ll just encourage you to read the whole thing!

UP-UPDATE (June 8 @ 5 AM): In a front-page articles in today’s Washington Post Dan Balz and Jonathan Weisman say the special in California’s 50th offers “scant evidence of the highly energized Democratic electorate that analysts say would be needed to dislodge the GOP from power on Capitol Hill in November.” And like men, these writers observe the significance of Busby’s overall percentage:

More worrisome to Democrats was the fact that Busby’s total hardly budged the 44 percent that Kerry won in the district in 2004. “If we can’t improve upon Kerry’s numbers in these congressional districts in this climate, we’ve got a big problem,” said one strategist, who asked not to be identified in order to give a candid assessment of the results.

This doesn’t mean, however. that things are hunky-dory for the GOP. Indepedent analyst Stuart Rotherberg pointed out that while Republicans “can’t be naive about what happened . . . , Democrats are still searching for evidence the wave is going to hit.” Read the whole thing!