There's an interesting debate over whether Ann Coulter called John Edwards a "faggot," and Howard Dean is calling on Republicans to denounce her for making the following statement:

I was going to have a few comments on the other Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards, but it turns out you have to go into rehab if you use the word "faggot," so I -- so kind of an impasse, can't really talk about Edwards."

The issue is not whether Ann Coulter is a bigot, for by using that word, she shows that she is. And that's new? (Yawn.)

The issue is recurrent one in politics and even in the blogosphere: to what extent are people responsible for the remarks of others?

I don't think they are.

I don't feel obligated to denounce Ann Coulter's remarks in order to show that I am not responsible for them. I am not responsible for them whether I denounce them or not.

The woman is an opportunist who knows how to grab a headline, and she knows that had she not said this (or something like it; last year it was the "raghead" remark), there'd have been nothing about her in Drudge or any of the blogs.

She stole the show, and she loves the fact that everyone is arguing over who is responsible for what she said.

Saying that she's responsible for what she said is not very satisfying.

So her allies in collusion on the left like Glenn Greenwald lead the charge, and not only claim that other people are responsible for what she says, but that they "love" her:

This is why I wrote so extensively about the Edwards blogger "scandal" and the Cheney comments "scandal." The people feigning upset over those matters are either active participants in, or passive aiders and abetters of, a political movement that, at its very core -- not at its fringes -- knowingly and continuously embraces the most wretched and obvious bigotry and bloodthirsty authoritarianism. They love Ann Coulter -- and therefore continue to make her a venerated part of their political events -- because she provides an outlet, a venting ground, for the twisted psychological impulses and truly hateful face that drives the entire pro-Bush, right-wing spectacle.

Sheesh.

Next thing I know, Ann Coulter will say that I love Glenn Greenwald.

Please don't make me PhotoShop that!

I hate three-ways.

Besides, as Lance at A Second Hand Conjecture makes clear, Greenwald is already having a three-way with himself.

(Just say heh.)

MORE: On a more serious note, Glenn Reynolds has a roundup of links including Rick Moran's advice on how to end Coulter fatigue:

1. Never write another blog post about Ann Coulter no matter how outrageous, cruel, or bigoted her language.

2. Immediately write the Presidents of Fox News, MSNBC, and CNN demanding that they refuse to schedule Coulter on any show for any reason on their networks.

3. Write the editor of Human Events and demand that they drop her column.

4. If her column appears in your local newspaper, write a letter to the editor demanding that they drop her column.

5. If you see her writings in any on line or print publication, write the editor and demand that they stop carrying her columns.

6. Any upcoming forum in which she is scheduled as a speaker or panel participant, write a letter to the organizers and make it clear that the reason you are not attending is due to Coulter's presence.

I am sick to death of this woman leading people to believe that she speaks for conservatives. She doesn't speak for me. And if you believe that she speaks for you, or if you were one of those mouth breathers who applauded when she used that disgusting epithet deliberately to hurt other people (not just John Edwards), then you are hopelessly beyond the pale yourself and would do well to examine exactly what you believe a conservative is and what is acceptable political discourse.

And here's Jennifer Rubin:

By clearly stating her comments are beyond the bounds of civil discourse and her presence not a welcome addition to a mature political party, the Republicans could do themselves a world of good. How often does a party have the opportunity to display some measure of dignity, restraint and self-reflection.?

So who will play the role of Bill Clinton to Coulter's Sister Souljah? It would be a sad commentary on the GOP if the answer is "no one."

At some point, Republicans will need to get over their issues with homosexuality. Regardless of whether one believes it to be a choice or a hardwired response, it has little impact on anyone but the gay or lesbian person. We can argue that homosexuality doesn't require legal protection, but not when we have our front-line activists referring to them as "faggots" or worse.

Helping Republicans look like bigots is good strategy.

Finally, Mickey Kaus quotes an email from Coulter to the NYT:

C'mon it was a joke. I would never insult gays by suggesting that they are like John Edwards. That would be mean.

But alas. Logic has nothing to do with this.