A response to Ann Coulter

I was appalled when Ann Coulter in her usual disregard for civility tried to tar John Edwards with a homophobic slur, one that got the crowd at the CPAC meeting all juiced up (and just after Mitt Romney commended her as a voice to be heard). Of course, this is really just par for the course and shows how the GOP has become a bastion for homophobic hysteria (though this isn't true of all GOPers).

Anyway, I ran across an interesting response from Richard Kim in The Nation that puts a different spin on the subject. Kim, who is gay, sees the response from Dems and gay activists playing into her hand and allows "faggot" to become a useful word to tar opponents -- because no one wants to be a fag, apparently.

It's also clear that Coulter's hopelessly confused "Democrats" and "Gays." (Freebie for Ann: Democrats tax and spend; fags just spend!) Why would Coulter cross the two? Because Democrats like Edwards care about poverty, healthcare and inequality? Because they're not ready to go all Dr. Strangelove on Iran? Because they don't shoot quails and buddies like manly man Cheney? What's so "vile," "disgusting" and "low" about that?

Fags like myself have been trying to rehabilitate faggotry for years, and it's time we're joined by our liberal friends. Edwards hasn't responded to Coulter yet, but when he does, he should step up to the plate. After all, there is something gay-ish about him. He's pretty. He's passionate. He spends a lot of time on his hair. And what's wrong with that? He should toss his Nancy Boy locks back at Coulter and say, "Faggot? I own that word."

Then maybe one day, as Toni Morrison once honored Bill Clinton by calling him our first black president, I can bestow upon Edwards the title of First Fag.

The real problem here is the ability to rally the faithful be playing on fear and stereotype. So, maybe Kim is right, not just for gays, but let's all accept the label and then move on to focus on the issues of the day.