Three’s Company

Hillary Clinton is widely knocked for carefully considering every position and pandering any response to curb favor with her immediate audience. In contrast, Barack Obama is widely lauded for his eloquence and charisma from the stump. And yet neither Democratic frontrunner took advantage when given the opportunity to condemn the ignorant social stance of Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Peter Pace.

 

Why is a politician playing it safe newsworthy? Because one of their rivals actually said something, something right, something that makes sense. That politician's name is John Edwards.

 

When asked the simple question, "Is homosexuality immoral?" in reference to General Pace's comment, Edwards did not try to massage any nuance into his response. "I don't share that view," he told CNN's Wolf Blitzer. "And I would go further than that ... I think the 'don't ask, don't tell' [policy] is not working. And as president of the United States I would change that policy."

 

Was that so hard? Why couldn't Obama and Clinton have been as clear in rebuking the general?

 

I like nearly everything I hear and see out of John Edwards, yet he has been largely relegated to "third wheel" status by the left- and right-wing media. Why are we not giving this guy more of a chance? I'm not saying he is my choice – in fact, PatRoW is not nearly ready to endorse any of the Democratic candidates – but clearly Edwards is a viable candidate. Don't believe me? Check out some of Edwards' qualities compared with other people in the presidential discussion:

 

·      He has a tangible platform and can speak passionately about an issue to which the entire middle- and lower-class can relate.

·      He is young, charismatic and engaging.

·      He is a strong family man.

·      He can admit a mistake and ask for forgiveness without sounding like a wimp, coward or insincere jackass.

·      He is whip smart.

 

I think it's silly that Edwards trails Hillary and Obama by such large margins and am fully confident that, barring any extraordinary circumstance, he will close out 2007 within striking distance of his rivals. However, we shouldn't wait that long to give Edwards his due as a realistic contender. And, I'm as guilty of this as anyone, we shouldn't only talk about him when someone brings up homosexuality.

Hell hath no fury like a Marine’s porn

File this one in the "Who'd have thunk it?" department: a history in gay porn can diminish your chances of being taken seriously as an intellectual and hurt your conservative politics street cred.

 

Shocking – I know.

 

Such lessons can be learned from the cautionary tale of Matt Sanchez, a Columbia University student and Marine Corps reservist who recently spoke at the Conservative Political Action Conference. While at CPAC he posed for a picture with Ann Coulter – a picture that was put under scrutiny after her infamous speech at the same event. The liberal blogosphere delighted in the revelation that Sanchez had acted in gay porn, a work history seemingly in conflict with his conservative views and Coulter's hateful words.

 

Sanchez clearly doesn't relish his memories of life in porn, but he is unapologetic about his choices. He also criticizes the industry as being the impetus that drove him towards his current conservative stance:

 

Porn reduces the mind and flattens the soul. I don't like it. That's not hypocrisy talking; that's just experience. I sometimes think of myself, ironically, as a progressive: I started off as a liberal but I progressed to conservatism. Part of that transformation is due to my time in the industry. How does a conservative trace his roots to such distasteful beginnings? I didn't like porn's liberalism. In porn, everything taboo is trivialized and everything trivial is magnified.

 

While Sanchez's story is interesting and he makes a valid point about "those who complain about wire-tapping reserve the right to pry into my private life and my past for political brownie points", I am most concerned about his accusation about what porn does to its participants.

 

Folks – I have long been a proponent of sending our nation's best and hottest young women into Porno University, but not if the entire industry is really just a front for the Young Republicans. Who could have foreseen that the conservatives would attack one of the left's seemingly most secure flanks? And does this mean that we need to be on alert for a recruitment campaign at DNC headquarters?

 

I mean, they already snagged one of our senators…

Hating the Haters

I don't like Ann Coulter. Stop the presses.

 

By now everyone has heard about the end of Coulter's speech on Friday at the Conservative Union Political Action Conference. Still, for context, her words are worth repeating: " I was going to have some comments on the other Democratic presidential candidate, John Edwards, but it turns out you have to go into rehab if you say the word faggot -- so I am kind of at an impasse."

 

Predictably, sane folks on both sides of the aisle raced to denounce the lunatic. Edwards, too, scored points with rational members of both parties with this measured response:

 

Edwards said Coulter's comment was "hateful, selfish, childish behavior."

 

"What I've learned is that if you don't have the courage to speak out against it -- no matter who says it, and no matter who it's leveled at -- then it becomes tolerable," he added. "And it's not tolerable, any more than the language I heard leveled at African Americans when I was young."

 

OK, Senator. I suppose that was fair. And I understand not wishing to engage Coulter in an ongoing debate – giving her any more time only plays to her maniacal need for attention. And yet, Edwards missed out on a chance to truly put the conservative blowhard in her place and say something that is long overdue in America.

 

With that in mind, I'm dusting off my DeLorean, firing up the flux capacitor, getting that baby up to 88 mph and turning the dial back 48 hours. Senator Edwards – I've written your response:

 

Friends,

 

As much as I'd like to ignore her, Ann Coulter said something that I need to address. Once. Really – I will have nothing more to say to her or about her after this.

 

On Friday, Ms. Coulter referred to me as a "faggot". Friends of mine were outraged. Gay rights activists were offended. Even a majority of Republicans distanced themselves from Ms. Coulter's choice of vocabulary.

 

And yet, I say this: so what?

 

So what that Ann Coulter chose to be deliberately offensive? One of the greatest things about America is that all of us, even the most hateful of us, have the freedom to say disgusting thoughts that come to mind. One of the greatest things about America is that we can criticize the actions, intelligence or even sexual preference of a president (or presidential candidate) without fear of repercussions.

 

I've taught my children a lesson that I learned at young age, a lesson that I'm sure most of you learned and have passed on as well. I've taught them that "sticks and stones may break my bones, but names will never hurt me". For all her hateful, ignorant and loathsome opinions, Ms. Coulter's words were just that – words. And words, while they have the power to influence, can never cause us harm unless we allow ourselves to be hurt.

 

Ann Coulter does not owe me an apology because I think being called "insincere", "dispassionate" or "un-American" are a lot worse than being called a "faggot". If gay Americans choose to be offended about her use of label, that is entirely within their right and I support their beliefs. But don't be offended for me – be offended that an attitude still persists that homosexuality is something deviant, something about which we should be embarrassed.

 

My fellow Americans: I don't care what labels you use to define me. My campaign is, as I've said all along, about building an America that lives up to its promise. And America's promise will always be about ideals, not the favorable or slanderous words we use to define one another.

 

I don't think that Ann Coulter represents a majority of Americans, but clearly her polarizing voice carries weight in some circles. And for that truth, I have a label for her, a label I use as my final word about her and this entire non-issue.

 

Ms. Coulter, and those for whom you speak – you are a disappointment.

 

What? You thought I was going to end with the c-word, didn't you? Well…I *was* thinking it, but I don't think that word would have made it onto the Senator's teleprompter.

Black Enough for the Blogosphere?

A compilation of my recent Obama posts (see here, here and here) has been posted on The "Y" – the online magazine written for and by the Young Professionals of Chicago. While loyal PatRoW readers have already read and digested my rants weeks ago, I encourage everyone to check out The "Y" and leave a comment on my – or any other – story.

 

Without further adieu, I give you Black Enough for the Blogosphere?

Farewell to the Chief

Last night, Chief Illiniwek danced his last dance in Champaign.

Wait – you're not from Illinois and have no idea why that's important…or what it even means? I'm sorry – let me start from the beginning.

Chief Illiniwek was the grossly stereotypical Indian caricature/mascot for the University of Illinois – the school at which a disproportionate amount of my Chicagoland friends attended. And get this: some people are offended that a white kid in face paint, feathered headdress and moccasins would prance around and make a mockery of Native American culture. Fucking prudes.

Though the Chief has been alienating Native and non-native Americans alike for decades, the school finally retired its mascot because of financial pressure from the NCAA (the school would not be able to host postseason athletic events if they chose to keep the Chief). Despite the sound fiscal reasoning, Illini alumni are pissed that the school would capitulate to the PC-police.

Normally, I'm the least politically correct liberal in town…but have you ever seen Chief Illiniwek? The Chief's supporters liked to claim that the mascot actually honored Native American culture, but in reality, the dude was a 21st century version of vaudevillian blackface. Maybe there aren't many Illini Tribe members left in central Illinois, but who wouldn't be offended by this guy's shenanigans?

The pro-Chief argument always seems to center around tradition – hey, we've been insulting an entire people since my grandpa's day, no way we're changing now! You know what was another popular American tradition? Slavery. I hear that depriving women of voting rights was a fun trend too – should we end universal suffrage?

The Chief represented a hateful mockery of an entire race. Maybe the student who portrayed him was a fair-minded fellow, and maybe the past and present students shared not a racist thought amongst them, but Chief Illiniwek was a walking, talking and dancing Confederate Flag. No matter what the intent, displaying a symbol of hate is always hateful. And (except for educational purposes) always wrong.

Adios, you disgusting racist symbol. I'm sure George Allen will welcome you into retirement.

Black enough for you?

Barack Obama's race continues to be an issue for some people…and that's a shame. He's black, not black, not black enough, African-American, half-black, mixed race and/or "other" – depending who you ask. Do any of those labels make a difference when considering our next president?

Following a few links, I stumbled across a blog post that communicates the only solid truth in this race-driven non-issue:

There's no such thing as a "post-racial" candidate when you look black . In this country, Obama can still be followed in a store suspected of being a shoplifter, be passed by a cab driver afraid to pick him up, or stopped by a police officer for "driving while black." In none of these cases would it matter if Barack Obama pulled out a family picture to show he's half white.

Isn't that the point here? Whether or not you believe Obama's genetic profile is representative of a specific community does not matter; what does matter is that, taken on appearance – not substance – alone, he is a black man.

Let's debate whether Obama's politics are reflective of the black community, the Democratic community and the greater American community. But let's also put to rest how those relevant discussions are affected by the amount of melanin in the man's skin.

Rhetorical subtleties even I can’t stomach

Apparently, I wasn't the only one taken aback by yesterday's Salon piece about Barack Obama not being black. Today, another of the online magazine's writers weighs in and quite strongly states his premise that Obama is, in fact, black -- he just isn't "black."

Did you get that? How about this:

People whose race or ethnicity defines their identity, or at least makes up a major part of it, are what I think of as quotation-mark people. They are not only mixed-race, they are "mixed-race." Those whose race or ethnicity has little or nothing to do with their identity, with their sense of themselves, are non-quotation-mark people. They may recognize themselves as black or Latino or Asian, be whatever race or ethnicity they are to the core, and proudly affirm they are such, but they aren't "black" or "Latino" or "Asian."

What the fuck is going on here people? Obama is African-American (he is quite literally the son of an African and an American), but despite the OBVIOUS AND (hopefully) IRRELEVENT color of his skin, he's not black and/or "black" enough for some folks?

The Iowa Caucuses are one year away, and we've allowed barely a week to pass between the official announcement of Obama's candidacy to slip into ridiculous rhetoric about race. Let's talk about America's silent racism and sexism – an important issue on which all primary voters need to seriously soul search. However, debating this kind of race label is as silly as talking about augmentations vs. escalations.

‘Homie has some rings to kiss and a kente-cloth pocket square to buy’

As I've documented in the past, nobody loves hyperbole more than me. That's why I couldn't pass up reading an editorial that claimed as its main argument that Barack Obama is not black.

Read that line again. I'll wait.

Salon's Debra J. Dickerson holds off on harsh criticisms of the senator's platform, but she does go after the one fact that everyone seems to agree on

"Black," in our political and social reality, means those descended from West African slaves. Voluntary immigrants of African descent (even those descended from West Indian slaves) are just that, voluntary immigrants of African descent with markedly different outlooks on the role of race in their lives and in politics. At a minimum, it can't be assumed that a Nigerian cabdriver and a third-generation Harlemite have more in common than the fact a cop won't bother to make the distinction. They're both "black" as a matter of skin color and DNA, but only the Harlemite, for better or worse, is politically and culturally black, as we use the term.

Wow. And you thought Scott McClellan was the king of spin (truth be told, he was *so* 2006).

Though I am wholly unqualified to debate the attribution of "blackness" in 21^st Century America, I can't get behind the argument…even as I find it intoxicatingly original.

Barack Obama is not black? What's next – Hillary Clinton is not a woman (I knew her hands were too big! Someone check under the skirt).

Maybe John McCain isn't really a war hero (in reality, he spent four years at Cambodia's Club Med).

Perhaps George W. Bush isn't really a douchebag (uh…well…uh…no, I can't come up with a plausible defense. He really is a douche).

Next up – the White House hosts a conference on international diplomacy

In a story destined to elicit spit-takes from casual readers around the world, Iran – that last bastion of enlightened intellectuals – will host a conference on the Holocaust.

Yes, that Iran – the one whose president infamously declared the Holocaust "a myth". The same Iran that refuses to acknowledge Israel and makes killing Jews a higher national priority than, oh I don't know, literacy.

So what gives, anyway?

Iran's Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki said in a welcome address that the conference's goal was to "create an opportunity for thinkers who cannot express their views freely in Europe about the Holocaust."

Ah, now this is making more sense. What kind of Holocaust views can't be expressed freely in Europe? The denials, of course!

And from the too-easy-to-predict file, it seems that former KKK Imperial Wizard and Louisiana gubernatorial candidate, David Duke will be there as well. What? George Allen couldn't make it?

Remember when folks other than Kramer were getting in trouble for using the “N-word”?

Virginia's George Felix Allen, outgoing US Senator and all-around douchebag (what – you forgot? I did a whole series on this loser) has given his first formal interview since losing to Democrat Jim Webb. What did "Macaca Goldstein" reveal? Well, for one thing, he likes using ridiculous football analogies. For another, he's an idiot.

"When you lose a game by one point, you can go through every play in the game and say, 'If we didn't jump offside, if the referee makes that call, if we caught that pass, if we didn't fumble, we could have made a difference," he said.

There is no word on whether anyone on Allen's staff explained to the senator that giddily throwing racial epithets isn't the same as "jumping offside", or that sticking a deer head in someone's mailbox is slightly different than dropping a pass, or that posing for pictures with the Confederate flag is a bit removed from a referee making a bad call, or, that adamantly denying, then begrudgingly accepting one's Jewish heritage is a bit more than a fumble, or, well, you get the picture.

But the mock redneck wasn't done making an ass of himself.

"Everyone, including myself, could have done a better job. I have high standards and high expectations for myself. I could have done better."

How? Allen wouldn't say.

"I'm not good at psychoanalysis," he said.

No, he sure isn't. Nor is he good at tolerance, or being humble, or recognizing the importance of education. But the next time you need to burn a cross, best keep George Allen on speed dial.

Quick Hits - Week(s) in Review

What happens when Republicans falter, Democrats don’t screw up and my political blood pressure cools from a boil to a mere simmer? PatRoW readers get the shaft with (at best) infrequent postings or (at worst) mediocre baseball analysis. But don’t fret, friends – Quick Hits has returned to pick up the many pieces that are worth a word or two, if not a full-fledged rant.

There is a gay agenda -- winning elections – I don’t believe it. Barney Frank, you sly dog you!

K-K-Kramer – anyone else still have Michael Richards’ catchy apology rap stuck in his head? Um…me neither.

Likability poll bad news for Kerry – perhaps the most understated headline of the year. It seems that the Massachusetts Senator, flubbed joke making, once-and-future Democratic presidential candidate finished dead last in a nation-wide likability poll of 20 top American political figures. Saying that this is “bad news” for Kerry is akin to saying that the passing of a kidney stone will lead to “some discomfort” or that the war in Iraq has been “notably different” results than what administration officials had hoped for. Way to go out on a limb, Reuters.

How is Kate Winslet like a car? – from those zany folks at Broadsheet, comes the latest in a series of wacky headlines. So how is Kate Winslet like a car, you ask? Hell, I can play this game without reading the article!

· She has “Oldsmobile” tattooed on her bumper

· Heh, heh. Hummer. Heh, heh.

· She has dumps like a truck, truck, truck

· “At 17 I went to prison for murder. By 19, I was penniless and heartbroken. I almost drowned at 20. My mind started to go at 24. Then I had my memory erased at 28. And by 29, I was in Neverland.” OK – so that really has nothing to do with how she’s like a car, but every time I see that stupid American Express commercial I want to run Kate over with my Honda Accord

Feel free to add your own idea for “how Kate Winslet is like a car” by posting a comment below. Trust me, it’s a blast!

Peace out, my Wigga – amazingly, this is not another Michael Richards joke. Rather, it’s an amusing tongue-in-cheek “entertainment” piece written by Salon’s sports writer, King Kaufman. Not so amusing is the fact that this seems to be a real story, not a spoof.

Sex and the single septuagenarian – and you laughed when I joked about this back in March. You know, there really is nothing sexier than the thought of busting a nut and breaking a hip at the same time.

At least his voice is less dweebish than Paul R. Nelson’s

Buried in a nice piece about presidential wannabe Evan Bayh and what he's doing in Indiana, was a note about a nasty campaign ad being run in the Hoosier State's 8^th District.

A [incumbent Republican John] Hostettler radio spot that warns that, if elected, [Brad] Ellsworth will vote for "San Francisco liberal Nancy Pelosi ... who will then put in motion her radical plan to advance the homosexual agenda led by Barney Frank, reprimanded by the House after paying for sex with a man who ran a gay brothel out of Congressman Frank's home."

How did I miss this one? It has all the trademarks of great/awful marketing to which I gravitate. Who can't get behind homophobic, dyslexic and geographically confused logic like that…especially when it's being read in the worst Clint Eastwood impersonation I've ever heard? But hey, Hoss, thanks for letting me hear the ad for myself.

Even I’m getting tired of N-word week

Loyal readers (hi mom) are likely as burned out as I am about the racist allegations flying around Virginia's senatorial campaign. Don't get me wrong – it is ALWAYS fun calling out hypocritical douchebags – but enough is enough…right?

I suppose it's only fair to end the week discussing the new allegations that have surfaced accusing Jim Webb of being every bit the racist as his opponent, George Felix Allen:

Daniel Cragg, a former acquaintance of Webb who supports Allen, says that he remembers Webb telling him in a 1983 interview about college trips to the Watts neighborhood of Los Angeles 20 years earlier, when Webb allegedly said he would harass black residents…Cragg insisted that he remembered Webb telling him that he would "click the trigger" of an empty rifle in the direction of the residents, and utter racial epithets.

This sounds bad. However, the story was first reported by the Washington Post, which, conveniently enough, was lead to Cragg by the Allen campaign (all of Allen's accusers came forward on their own, were found by investigative reporters and/or had hoped to remain silent but had private e-mails made public by their colleagues). And lest we be confused, the stories about Allen involve first-hand recollections of people who witnessed the senator's racism; Cragg claims to have heard Webb admit to his indiscretions (the difference being allegations against only one of the candidates would be admissible as evidence in a court of law).

And how about this nugget?

Cragg said he expected to find evidence of the conversation on an audiotape of the interview, but the tape contained no such reference. "Either I turned the recorder off, or later I sat down and I deleted it," claimed Cragg.

Right, either you turned off the recorder, deleted it, or your dog ate it. I understand.

Listen, Jim Webb is no angel. He infamously penned a brief in 1979 entitled "Women Can't Fight" and spoke of a coed Naval Academy dorm as "a horny woman's dream". But let's get one thing clear: there is only ONE candidate in the race who tried to bully a brown-skinned man with a racial epithet, claim the word had no meaning, claim his staff made up the word, then again claim it had no meaning (who knows what the story is today?). There is only one candidate that posed for a campaign ad with a Confederate flag, much like he had posed with one in his high school yearbook. There's only one candidate whose college classmates went on record as hearing and witnessing his racism and only one who opposed a holiday honoring Martin Luther King, Jr.

Jim Webb is no angel; but there is definitive proof that George Allen is a pompous, lying, arrogant, bullying racist. Isn't that enough to close the book?

I’m not a racist - it was the guy on the grassy knoll!

I'm sure there are things to write about other than George Allen's use of "the N-word", but none of them are quite as fun. Remember that massive liberal conspiracy? Well, it's at it again:

Ellen Hawkins, who described herself as a rural Virginia housewife and an active Democrat, said in an interview Tuesday that she heard Mr. Allen use the slur repeatedly at a party on election night in 1976. She said Mr. Allen used the term while deprecating the intelligence of the black players on the Washington Redskins football team, which Mr. Allen's father coached. Recalling remarks about its star running back, Larry Brown, Mrs. Hawkins said that Mr. Allen "started in effect bad-mouthing him, saying what a shiftless you-know-what" he was.

I hate to kick a man while he's down – actually, that's a lie. I love it. But kicking him is better than lynching, which besides being disgusting and illegal, may be the kind of thing that the Senator gets off on.

Next up – ‘but some of my best friends are gooks’

After the news broke about George Allen's use of "the N-word" in college, the Senator immediately and vociferously denied it as a partisan attempt to bring him down. On Monday he told the AP, "The story and…assertions in there are completely false."

What else was he going to say? "Yup, I hate them niggers. Spics too." The only big surprise was how quickly facts were uncovered that prove he's a liar.

In the heat of Macaca-Gate, Chris Taylor, a University of Alabama professor of anthropology, wrote to a colleague and detailed the Senator's past racism. Taylor's August 17 e-mail recalled his days as a University of Virginia grad student and how he met Allen while earning extra money doing publicity photo shoots:

I met him twice actaully [ sic]. I did two modelling [sic] jobs with his then wife and she told me about some puppies they were trying to give away. I told her I'd like to take one. So one evening I went out to their place in the country near [ Charlottesville] somewhere. There was a pond quite close by. I asked if they had any waterfowl landing there. George told me about the ducks and geese that sometimes landed there and about the ducks who tried to raise their young but who would have them all devoured by the big turtles in the pond. Well, why doesn't someone kill the turtles and eat them? I asked. George said 'only the niggers around here eat em.'

Just so you get the timeline right, Taylor sent this e-mail a full month before any other allegations surfaced about Allen using "the N-word", and the e-mail itself was made public by the receiver, not sender (this should diminish Allen's inevitable claims of a partisan conspiracy).

Is that all, Senator? You hate the browns , you hate the blacks and you seem to exhibit classic Jewish self-loathing (maybe instead of Felix we should call you George "Woody" Allen). You think being liberal is almost as bad as being able to read. You threw your own flesh and blood through a glass door. Are we leaving anyone or anything out? What's you take on kittens: kill or cuddle?

Felix's Faux Pas

The picture just keeps getting uglier for Senator George Felix Allen. While his racism came into national focus thanks to Macaca-Gate, it seems that his bigotry can be traced to the very beginning of his Virginia roots.

In case you need a refresher, the California-born mock redneck Allen infamously posed with a Confederate pin in his high school yearbook and later appeared in a campaign ad filmed at his home with the flag in the background. And then there's the matter of his record as a lawmaker. " As a member of the Virginia Legislature, Allen opposed a state holiday honoring Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. As Virginia's governor, Allen issued a proclamation honoring Confederate History Month that contained no mention of slavery."

But wait…there's more. Now, three of Allen's former University of Virginia football teammates have come forth with corroborating stories of the senator's racism:

"Allen said he came to Virginia because he wanted to play football in a place where 'blacks knew their place,'" said Dr. Ken Shelton, a white radiologist in North Carolina who played tight end for the University of Virginia football team when Allen was quarterback. "He used the N-word on a regular basis back then."

A second white teammate, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because he feared retribution from the Allen campaign, separately claimed that Allen used the word "nigger" to describe blacks. "It was so common with George when he was among his white friends. This is the terminology he used," the teammate said.

A third white teammate contacted separately, who also spoke on condition of anonymity out of fear of being attacked by the Virginia senator, said he too remembers Allen using the word "nigger," though he said he could not recall a specific conversation in which Allen used the term. "My impression of him was that he was a racist," the third teammate said.

To be fair, these allegations were made by only three of Allen's 19 former teammates interviewed by reporters. Some even claim the senator had " no prejudices, biases or anything else." And yet, there seems to be no political agenda driving the outing of the would-be Klansman/Senator. Shelton – the only named accuser – has a bipartisan voting record and has publicly supported Republican candidates. Why would he lie about a man he hasn't talked to in thirty years?

Here's the thing – I hate the whole "where there's smoke, there's fire" argument, but there are more fumes coming out of Allen's campaign than there are at a Phish concert. You may not believe that he liked/likes to use the word "nigger", or that he stuffed a dead dear's head into a black family's mailbox, or that he had heard the word "Macaca" at least once prior to using it to mock a brown-skinned employee of his opponent, or that he spoke fondly about imperial wizards of the Ku Klux Klan, or any other less-than-flattering story in the news. But the facts that we do know about this douchebag (zest for the Confederate Flag, white supremacist voting record, a noose hanging outside his law office) certainly make these new allegations a lot more believable, don't they?

I'm super...thanks for asking

I had planned on leaving the whole "Ann Coulter calls Bill Clinton gay" thing alone, mostly because giving her additional attention plays into her devious, cuntish mind. But she just won't let it go…and I can't keep quite any longer.

Earlier this week, Coulter appeared on Donny Deutsch's show and made his dozens of viewers wonder if women's suffrage should be rethought. Salon provides this commentary:

Under prodding from Deutsch, Coulter repeated on the air something she had told him just before the cameras went on: She thinks Bill Clinton is at least a little bit gay. Her evidence? Well, all those sexual relations he's had with women, of course. "I think that sort of rampant promiscuity does show some level of latent homosexuality," Coulter explained.

Coulter, who said she was "glued" to the Kenneth Starr report about the president, claimed that Clinton didn't know Monica Lewinsky's name "until their sixth sexual encounter," and she finds something "of the bathhouse about that." "It's reminiscent of a bathhouse," she said. "It's just this obsession with your own -- with your own essence."

Deutsch -- the reasonable one in this particular conversation -- asked whether it's possible that Clinton might be "narcissistic" or a "nymphomaniac" without being gay. "Well," Coulter responded, "there is something narcissistic about homosexuality, right? Because you're in love with someone who looks like you. I'm not breaking new territory here. Why are you looking at me like that?"

Ah, Annie – we're looking at you like that because it's rare to see someone so stupid taken so seriously by other stupid people. You're like an eclipse; we know we shouldn't watch, but we can't draw our eyes away and end up scarring our souls retinas.

Anyway, not satisfied by the collective ambivalence of her critics, Coulter promoted the "gay Clinton" agenda on Hardball (the lessons learned – if you want attention, you must: a) call 9/11 widows "whores"; or b) realize that no one watches Donny Deutsch). When asked by Chris Matthews if her opinion on Clinton was based on her own private life, Coulter responded no, that it was "a manifestly obvious fact…I mean, why would a promiscuous heterosexual man have, as I say, a whiff of the bathhouse about him?"

Uh, what?

Matthews tried again. You're joking, right?

"It's not only not a joke, it's not even surprising," Coulter insisted. "…[ Clinton's] wild promiscuity shows a fear and hostility [toward] women."

Right, Ann. Bill hates women and is so gay that he has no other choice than to bang any heifer who throws herself at him…and you're such a good American and Christian that you have no other choice but to spew hate and ignorance at anyone who focuses a TV camera on your anorexic mug.

Millions of divorces are fine, but two guys kissing will destroy American families!

I briefly touched on this issue the other day, but I think I'm ready to go a bit more into the issue now that the State of Washington Supreme Court yesterday upheld a law banning same-sex marriages. For those of you keeping score at home, this means that…

Massachusetts remains the only state that sanctions same-sex marriages. New York's highest court, by a vote of 4 to 2 earlier this month, upheld state laws limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples. The New Jersey Supreme Court is expected to rule soon on the legality of same-sex marriages there.

I know that this is discouraging news to anyone without a conservative nutjob agenda, but you can choose to view the glass as half full. You see, Washington's judiciary last addressed the issue of gay marriage in 1974. At that time an appeals court unanimously voted against the issue (yesterday's vote was 4-3) and the state Supreme Court refused to hear the case.

"You've gone in 32 years from something that was more or less a slam dunk to where the court is almost evenly and very bitterly divided," said William B. Rubenstein, a law professor at the University of California, Los Angeles, and author of Sexual Orientation and the Law. "The issue is in play."

Of course, don't get too optimistic. It's hard to feel hopeful when douchebags like this are gleefully celebrating:

"Today is a great day for marriage and the family," said Mathew D. Staver, the chairman of Liberty Counsel, a group that opposes the legal recognition of same-sex marriages. "We are pleased that this latest attempt by the homosexual agenda to radically redefine our culture has been stopped dead in its tracks."

The "homosexual agenda" is "radically redefining" our country? Guess again, asscunt. The radical change in our country – and the most viscous assault on the institutions of family and marriage – is coming from the tens of millions of heterosexual divorces. Go ahead – I dare you to tell me I'm wrong.

And how, pray tell, did the Washington Court reach its decision? "Limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples," Justice Barbara A. Madsen wrote in the [majority] opinion, "furthers procreation, essential to the survival of the human race…" Thank God Justice Madsen is looking out for the human race. I mean, we'd be on the brink of extinction without her, right?

Madsen continued her ill-informed and inflammatory opinion by claiming that a gay marriage ban "furthers the well-being of children by encouraging families where children are reared in homes headed by the children's biological parents." Does it? Because I could have sworn that there are tens of millions of American children being raised by non-biological heterosexual parents. If this were really the point, wouldn't Madsen and her slack-jawed yokel cronies have to also ban adoption, re-marriage and foster families?

Honestly, all Americans should be embarrassed that this civil rights issue is still on the table. Our legal system is supporting Jim Crow laws that discriminate against 10% of the population, yet we still take two steps backwards every time we make one step toward progress. Why aren't more of us outraged?

Fightin’ (and Fascist) Irish

Looks like someone hit the whiskey a bit early this St. Paddy's Day:

The man in charge of Manhattan's St. Patrick's Day parade has fueled a controversy by saying allowing a gay group to join Friday's march would be like permitting neo-Nazis to participate in an Israeli parade.

No, John Dunleavy, I don't think that's exactly right. You see, no one loves parades quite as much as homosexuals. Denying their participation would be much more like not allowing Nazis to participate in a Jew-killing parade. Do yourself a favor and get your gross distortions and horribly offensive analogies in order, mister.

Bush's Butt Buddy

This just in: Bush administration officials are buzzing about the possible nomination of Jacob Robida for a Congressional Medal of Honor. It’s just another example of an act of heroism from honest, God fearing people.

You know, because Jesus was all about shooting and sticking hatchets into the heads of “them queers”.