I guess the unasked -- and certainly unanswered -- question is why Ms. Coulter seems to have "gays on the brain."

This is a well-reported example of how the media can influence politics through its coverage of public issues. Ann Coulter's foul behavior clearly classifies her as an entertainer, not a journalist; she chooses to express herself by presenting her opinions as facts, and makes the matter worse through distasteful and humorless innuendos such as these. The mainstream media, on the other hand, has a difficult choice to make: do you ignore her foolish remarks to help the public focus on important topics? or do you cover her disgraceful behavior to show how irresponsible media figures like her can threaten intelligent public debate? Uf you take the latter approach, do you run a risk of being typecast as sensationalistic tabloid ... More »

Mission accomplished: Disgust to distract the public from the deplorably inept Republican Executive Branch, and the actions of the Republicans in the Senate to stifle important legislation supported by the majority of Americans. After all Anna Nicole is now buried. I applaud the New York Times for not reporting this initially - we need some filters in the media to bring the real news of the day above the fold.

Does not use the unflattering Coulter photos that other stories have used. Seems to be a fair, complete and accurate reporting of the incident and responses that were available at the time of writing. Minimal context on Coulter's background though.

She is generally funny, cutting, and sharp, but this is too much at the level of Maher.

The fact that we even have this story to comment upon is symptomatic of a much larger problem--that someone like Anne Coulter is still taking center stage on an issue of such importance as the societal perception of the appropriate rights and responsibilities of gays and lesbians. Reporting on what was said, by whom, in what forum, and what response was made are all of lesser import than the larger question--how should our democracy handle the question of balancing the rights of this minority against the rights of those opposed to this minority. It may be as central to our understanding of democracy as the race and women's righgts issue. That is the larger question--not what was said and who said it.

Another view on the homophobic Ms. Coulter's comment and the lack of mainstream media coverage. See Captain's Quarters posting on this subject (linked and reviewed on NewsTrust).

Just another example of smashmouth politics ... I agree that anyone obsessed with sexuality and intent on bringing that aspect of a person's life into public debate has alot of unresolved sexual issues herself. Her mass-appeal is a sad commentary on the overall level of stupidity and over-sexualization in our national debates and culture.

Coulter's immaturity and prejudice are held bare as her juvinile remarks at a neocon conference draw ire and a challenge from left leadership.

Stop giving this bigot the soapbox she desires.

I think it's unfortunate anybody takes notice of Ms. Coulter's hate speech. Personally, I know many faggots I'd rather listen to than her. And I'd be more offended to be compared to her than to them.

I think the best cure for prominent Republican hatemongers like Ann Coulter is to ignore them. But failing that, this is a good summary of the mild Republican disavowal of their hero Ann Coulter's ongoing hate speech, as well as clear statements by Democrats that they will no longer silently put up with such behavior.

I don't know why anyone gives credence to Ann Coulter, she's a shrill voice and contributed nothing positive to issues in the national discussion.