Guest Blogger

Ann Coulter: On the Gay Circuit in West Hollywood

Filed By Guest Blogger | October 29, 2007 8:10 AM | comments

Filed in: Media
Tags: Ann Coulter, blood money, faggot, guest post, John Edwards, West Hollywood

[EDITOR'S NOTE:] This guest post comes to us from Rick Jacobs. Rick chaired Howard Dean's 2003 presidential campaign in California. He is currently Chair and Founder of the Courage Campaign, a progressive political organization in California. He is also the Chair and Co-Founder of Brave New Films, the documentary film company.

We had dinner last night at Murano, a new West Hollywood restaurant, owned by gay circuit party promoter Jeffrey Sanker, and lesbian night club owners Robin Gans and Sandy Sachs. It's a visually stunning space, straight lines, whites and reds accented by brilliant Murano glass chandeliers (hence the name of the restaurant). It's right at home within eyeshot of West Hollywood's Pacific Design Center, clearly appealing in a neighborhood of gay clubs, bars and restaurants.

ANN_COULTER_PICTURE_SIDE_VIEW.jpgToward the end of dinner, one of my companions insisted that the painfully thin, emotive, long blond haired thing in a small black dress with nearly exposed bosoms was none other than Ann Coulter. I did not believe him. Why would Ann Coulter, who hates homosexuals, go to dinner at gay ground zero? Why would she spend her hard earned gay-bashing royalties to enrich Jeffrey Sanker and otherwise support gay-owned businesses?

But sure enough, he was right. I could not tell if she was dining with people she hates or just demonstrating that she's a fraud who says whatever she must to sell books so that she can live the gay urban lifestyle. Based on her behavior last night, I am sure it is the latter, although based on her table mates, it could be both.

Remember Ann Coulter on John Edwards and homosexuals?

"I was going to have a few comments on the other Democratic presidential candidate, John Edwards, but it turns out that you have to go into rehab if you use the word 'faggot,' so I'm - so, kind of at an impasse, can't really talk about Edwards, so I think I'll just conclude here and take your questions."

Now, the last I checked, most gay people, including me, do not think the term "faggot" is endearing.

Notorious people have the right to dine where they please. I also think that they have to eat their own cooking. It's quite simple, really. If a person makes her money by being famous and that person has an addiction problem, she has the right to privacy to solve that problem. But if she proclaims her sobriety to get out of jail and then shows up at a bar, she has to expect that her public might inquire as to her truth. You can't have it both ways: sober for the police and the press; publicly drunk for real. In time, you are caught in the lie. It's one or the other, fame or privacy.

Clearly, Ann Coulter was caught in a lie. There she was, burbling like a fountain about her interview on Donnie Duetsch's show in which she says Jews should be Christians, completely at ease in the heart of the gayest city on the planet. She was a natural with the gay men who surrounded her. She enjoyed the fawning attention by her two not so masculine male escorts, clearly in her milieu.

I was therefore shocked that when we tried to engage her in conversation, she became embarrassed, turned away, nestling her head inside her long, blond hair, much as would an embarrassed school girl caught stealing the answers to an exam.

We wondered if she was comfortable in West Hollywood, in a restaurant where a large number of the patrons are gay, and where the gay owners make money off of her dining bill. Her response (physically, because she would not speak): "I am too embarrassed to talk to you." Had we been able to see her high cheek bones, then averted and clutched in her hands to hide her shame, we'd have seen a red-faced hypocrite, caught living a lie. Think Britney Spears or Paris Hilton or others who make money simply for being famous and then have no clue how to respond when they are caught lying.

Ann Coulter loves the camera, so we snapped a few with a cell phone. Her sturdy female minder said we were "molesting" her. Ann Coulter molested by having her picture taken? I guess she's molested every day, then. She might want to check into rehab to deal with her addiction to such molestation.

When the manager came by with our check, he said, "Look, I'm sorry she's here, but I have to serve her." The staff were clearly appalled when they realized who was in their midst. Did Hitler eat kosher food even as he worked out the final solution?

Remember those "we reserve the right to serve anyone" signs? I assume they are for real. Had it been my restaurant, I would have sent her away, not allowed her to enjoy the life she craves. On the other hand, we have to wonder why Ann Coulter feels so comfortable among the gay men she hates. Clearly, she's just a hypocrite, saying outrageous, inflammatory, dangerous, un-Christian words simply to make enough money to pay for dinner in, well, West Hollywood.

Ann Coulter had nothing to say last night because anything she could conjure would have been too absurd. So she ducked her head, embarrassed at being caught where she most likes to be, hoping to disappear. Ann Coulter is a coward who uses evil speech in the safety of a studio to make money. She obviously does not even believe the obscenities she hurls at America, a country she says she hates.

How many adolescents in mid-America have heard Ms. Coulter saying they are "faggots," subhumans who should die, just so she could eat dinner at a gay-owned establishment and pay with blood money? How many lives have ended so that Ms. Coulter can giggle and guzzle in West Hollywood?

I do not believe in bothering famous people when they are out in public. But Ann Coulter created her fame and fortune by cultivating a persona of hate. She has to be called to account. Next time, I hope the folks at Murano or any other public establishment will just say no to the Ann Coulters of the world. Let Ann Coulter eat her own cooking. I doubt she can stand the taste of what she dishes, but it's worth letting her try.


Recent Entries Filed under Media:

Leave a comment

We want to know your opinion on this issue! While arguing about an opinion or idea is encouraged, personal attacks will not be tolerated. Please be respectful of others.

The editorial team will delete a comment that is off-topic, abusive, exceptionally incoherent, includes a slur or is soliciting and/or advertising. Repeated violations of the policy will result in revocation of your user account. Please keep in mind that this is our online home; ill-mannered house guests will be shown the door.


Using Ann Coulter’s body as a way to discredit her is just as offensive as any comments she has made using the word faggot.

Toward the end of dinner, one of my companions insisted that the painfully thin, emotive, long blond haired thing in a small black dress with nearly exposed bosoms was none other than Ann Coulter.

Painfully thin = ugly
Nearly exposed bosoms = slut

Wow. This is misogynistic crap. Get a clue.

THIS IS MUCH ADO ABOUT NOTHING! GET OVER IT

AND YES, ALEX -- THAT'S ALL IN CAPS!!

Speaking of misogyny...have you seen the latest "What the Buck"?

Its pretty bad.

If I were at that WEHO homo hot spot I might have been tempted to throw food at Coulter. In fact, it might have been more effective for you to do that than to get bitchy about her appearance.

Yes, I use that term intentionally.

She is an a-hole because of the way she makes her living by being slanderous and outrageous, not because of her sex.

Her dining with the gays reminds me of Obama touring with the ex-gays that he doesn't agree with. But no one has critiqued him for his tight, bulge enhancing slacks or his meaty and well toned frame.

Otherwise, I'm glad to read the story. Lets see the pics....

Well, the bias is apparent in the article, though I'm sure most will be hard-pressed to not present some sort of bias against a woman who dismisses a term which is so psychologically damaging to our community as merely a "schoolyard taunt."

Rather than be so militant about it, I would imagine a collective look of disappointment and disdain would have sufficed from everyone present in there. Furthermore, the blame should go more to the dignity-free gay escorts who associate with her and dare bring here into a location that represents a community she so readily sells out to the GOP monster.

By the way, I agree, the attacks on her physique are uncalled for and unprofessional. Besides, she may be thin and her boobs may be sagging, but that head of hair is fairly impressive, to say the least * sweat drop*.

Furthermore, the blame should go more to the dignity-free gay escorts who associate with her and dare bring here into a location that represents a community she so readily sells out to the GOP monster.

And furthermore, Bilerico has given this guy some cred by publishing this um, bit of news

Michael Crawford Michael Crawford | October 29, 2007 11:47 AM

Coulter epitomizes the hypocrisy of the Republican Party. Its disgusting.

Her constant anti-gay commentary earns her the cash that keeps her clothe in little black cocktail dresses even as she hangs out with gay people in gay establishments.

Of course, this story also points out yet again that there gay people who don't give a damn if someone treats them like crap as long as they can feel themselves to be special by hanging out with a "celebrity."

Brynn Craffey Brynn Craffey | October 29, 2007 11:48 AM

Using Ann Coulter’s body as a way to discredit her is just as offensive as any comments she has made using the word faggot.

If that's what the writer was doing, then you'd be right. But are you kidding?! Describing Coulter as painfully thin and wearing a dress with low clevage is NOT misogyny. It's description.

But no one has critiqued him for his tight, bulge enhancing slacks or his meaty and well toned frame.

Oh no? Have you so quickly forgotten the media hoopla over Obama's "hunky" photo in a bathing suit in People magazine? Though even were it true, I'm not sure your point would be worth making as the media has a undisputed history of treating Democratic, women, and African American candidates in a decidedly less serious manner than white, male Republican candidates.

The fact that Coulter, who has on camera behaved in a homophobic manner, was caught dining in a LG-owned West Hollywood restaurant in the company of a gay entourage is newsworthy.

"Painfully thin = ugly
Nearly exposed bosoms = slut

Wow. This is misogynistic crap."

I'm with you partially on the latter. However, given who this is referring to and who she shills for - people who, if they had had their way, would still be criminalizing such attire - I'm not really sure that's out of line.

As for the former - if it translates to "ugly," wouldn't it be equally applicable to men as well as women? I tend to think the misogyny comes in from the proliferation of 'painfully thin' as a glamorous ideal to aspire to - in which case, Coulter would be a tool of misogyny (as well as a de facto self-loathing practitioner-ess of it.)

I am being ultra cautious about not appearing to defend Ms. Coulter.

Obama being called a hunk is objectifying and says nothing about his character. The common remarks about Coulter are that she is super skinny and haggard and even that she has a large adams apple.

I would love to see the pics of her dining at that restaurant plastered all over the internet. She (as well as her companions) deserves to be embarrassed by association with each other.

Implying that she is a skank sounds too much like something she would put forward in exchange for thoughtful banter. That association is almost as bad as having dinner with her.

She is the symptom. How many books does she sell?

Actually, putting up her pictures in a gay gathering would only help her, as it would give validity that "some of her friends are gay." She would be the poster girl for the Religious Right as "victimized soldier" by showing that she is not a bigot because she hangs out with the crowd; after all, she's just being a "good, compassionate Christian." It gives her field of expertise to talk about the "gay lifestyle."

She's just another Giuliani who picks her "gay friends" for entertainment, just like most straight women do. We are amusing little creatures to our "fellow" heterosexuals, after all.

This article doesn’t exist in a vacuum, Brynn.

Attacks on Coulter’s appearance and gender identity are widespread among liberal media outlets -- a fact which has been pointed out and challenged by feminist bloggers over, and over, and over again.

“Painfully thin” and “Nearly exposed bosoms” may be descriptions, but they are extremely loaded descriptions intentionally used to discredit Ann Coulter by attacking her body.

Brynn Craffey Brynn Craffey | October 29, 2007 1:20 PM

Nick, I am one of those feminist bloggers who have argued on other sites about unfairly going after Coulter for her appearance. Just because it happens elsewhere doesn't mean it's going on here. And I don't think it is.

R~

And furthermore, Bilerico has given this guy some cred by publishing this um, bit of news

Hmmmm... I wonder people would say the same about tomorrow's guest post?


Misogyny, etc.~

I have a hard time caring about her being given some of her own medicine. This is the woman who thinks women shouldn't have the right to vote because they're too stupid. I mean, this is someone who calls anyone who gets an abortion a slut because they didn't wait till marriage. This is someone who berates Hillary Clinton over her femininity and gay bashes, yes, Bill Clinton and Al Gore.

That being said, I still wouldn't want us to have to sink to her level just because we don't like her. But I don't see "painfully thin" as really an insult - I mean, if being thin were generally insulting, then what's up with like every fashion magazine and actress and such? The second about her dress, well, this is the exact type of thing that she rails against all the time, people dressing up slutty or being sluts or whatever. I think it's significant for that reason.

And these descriptors were there with "emotive" and "long blonde hair". I don't see how those can be insults.

But yeah, in general, the adam's apple and "Mann Coulter" comments are offensive. I just don't see this as being the same thing.


Lucrece~

I think you're right, that that's the way this is going to be spun. Just like Jack Cloud over at Time who just loves himself some Ann Coulter and wrote that puff piece about her several years ago in which he said she wasn't homophobic because she enjoys drag shows.... Yeah, we know what's what they're going to say and then it's the "militant gay activists" who are the ones who are just being mean to her, but she likes gays, honest! Hate the sin love the sinner!

Kat & Alex -

However, given who this is referring to […] I'm not really sure that's out of line.

I have a hard time caring about her being given some of her own medicine.

Sexism and misogyny are not weapons of oppression that can be swung only to hit a specific target.

Brynn Craffey Brynn Craffey | October 29, 2007 2:41 PM

Sexism and misogyny are not weapons of oppression that can be swung only to hit a specific target.

I'm with Nick on this one, and I'd add that one of the criticisms I made in other instances where Coulter was being put down for her appearance was that I hold progressives to a higher standard. I don't want to sink to the level of the rightwing--ever.

But I still don't think the language in question in this post qualifies.

R~

And furthermore, Bilerico has given this guy some cred by publishing this um, bit of news

Hmmmm... I wonder people would say the same about tomorrow's guest post?

This writer's comments are a shining example of the issues raised in tomorrow's post concerning gay men and their shallow, catty, misogynists behavior.

Perfect timing!

And thanx for the plug!

gay men and their shallow, catty, misogynists behavior.

How does that not seem like internalized homophobia to you?

How about women and their shallow, catty, misogynist behavior? I mean, gawsh, they just can't stop fighting with one another, and that's why they get what they deserve!

No, that's not sexist, it's just been my experience that women are catty, shallow and narcissistic. I'm not saying that every woman is, I'm just saying that they are in general.

And for everyone else, I'm being sarcastic! Or maybe just catty and shallow and misogynist....

She's been going to some gay events recently - one has to wonder if she's going to come out. Shudder.

http://jezebel.com/gossip/the-jezegay/ann-coulter-is-nothing-but-an-awesome-fag-hag-305720.php

http://tinyurl.com/36rlhv

I think it'd be greeat if Anne Coulter came out!!

Nick, as someone who's been described as "painfully thin" before, I have to take umbrage at:

Painfully thin = ugly

My grandmother used to say it as "That man is so painfully thin he could cut cans with his elbows." It's just a descriptive phrase for that level of skinny one step above anorexic.

It means nothing and isn't misogynistic. I get called "painfully thin" quite often and I'm not female. And I'd like to think I'm not ugly either - or else I'm going to have to rethink a lot of my experiences to include a lot of my relatives and friends thinking I'm unattractive.