Still More Defense of the Indefensible—or— What is it with Republicans and Homosexuals?

The Coulter wars drag on over at CalCon, with wacky former LA cop/hollywood liberal/Marine (wow, a former Marine, too!) Clark Baker weighing in. To sum up Baker's philosophy: mAnn's remarks are okay, she's just saying what we're thinking.

Many Republicans, especially heterosexual white men, appreciate Ann Coulter because she says things that would have gotten them pilloried for the past thirty years.

And why is it that these "things she says" would get you pilloried, Clark? Could it be because they are offensive, malicious and outright lies? The last time I saw John Edwards kiss his wife, she was still a woman, and the kids were in tow. Now, that's not to say that a married man can't be homosexual, but I really, truly doubt that Edwards is gay. I certainly can't find any reference online that even remotely suggests that Edwards is gay. According to what I could find, he certainly doesn't take the gays' side in the marriage debate, and somehow I think, were he gay, he wouldn't vote against his own interests (but alas, that is a topic for another time and place).

Nevertheless, be careful saying "heterosexual white men appreciate Ann Coulter" as there is rampant speculation that mAnn is, well, a man. All those straight guys may take offense at suggesting they like men.

There is a reason that heterosexual white men have had to stifle themselves: a history of homophobic, racist and misogynistic behavior. Let's be clear, though. Only heterosexual white men and Coulter are entitled to this behavior, as we saw when Edwards hired an outspoken liberal blogger and was summarily thrown to the wolves for her previous and unaffiliated postings, by (yes, you might have guessed it) heterosexual white men and Ann Coulter.

Coulter’s comment clearly referred to limp-wristed, spineless, whiney philosophical fags rather than homosexuality.

Interesting set of links here. First, linking to the Belfast Telegraph? What's up with that, especially given that the term "fag" in British slang is entirely different than American slang. Then, linking the word "fag" to Dictionary.com, which then gives every conceivable derivative except the one in which Coulter used the term? How about linking to the term Ann used, or perhaps Meriam-Webster, The American Heritage Dictionary, Wikipedia, (and don't forget about the fake wiki, Conservapedia where there are no homosexuals); hell, just type "faggot" into The Google and watch the page fill with references to homosexuals and Ann! Of course, this would show that the word "faggot" does, in fact, reference "slang: Disparaging and Offensive. a male homosexual."

I would argue that the use of the word "faggot" in the context of Ann's speech had one and only one meaning. Ann thought it would be funny/explosive/attention grabbing. I guess two out of three ain't bad. Then again, anything an attention-deficit whore says is explosive. Ann knows that, and certainly isn't shy about vocalizing insensitive, offensive and obnoxious sentiments. And that is the point: Ann used the word "faggot" because of its meaning not, as Baker suggests, in spite of its meaning.

Many Republicans have shown moral character in this episode, joining Edwards, Democrats and patriots in castigating Coulter. Too bad Baker is not among them.