I suppose the girl can’t help it. She just has an involuntary impulse to behave like a retarded, narcissistic, goose-stepping, hate machine. Well, Ann Coulter has just set off another idiot-bomb:

“It turns out you have to go into rehab if you use the word ‘faggot,’ so I’m kind of at an impasse — I can’t really talk about [John] Edwards.”

It’s not like it’s something new. She has launched the same juvenile insult at Al Gore and Bill Clinton. The problem here is not that she has once again been caught being a repulsive purveyor of hate. The problem is that her antics still have not resulted in the revocation of her license to appear on any media outlet that she agrees to sully with her noxious presence. Take, for instance, this appearance on Fox, where Coulter defended herself with her pal Sean Hannity:

“Faggot isn’t offensive to gays; it has nothing to do with gays. It’s a schoolyard taunt meaning ‘wuss,’ and unless you’re telling me that John Edwards is gay, it was not applied to a gay person.”

This lying sack of vomit knows better than that. She would not have used the reference to “rehab” had she been unaware of the obvious vulgarity in which she was engaging. She now considers herself the victim and calls the reaction to her verbal diarrhea “speech totalitarianism.” But if you think this is the end of the story, think again. Here is how she responded upon learning that Mitt Romney, John McCain, and Rudy Giuliani, all repudiated her comments:

“…if they’re going to start apologizing for everything I say, they better keep that statement handy cause there’s going to be a lot more in the next year.”

Thanks for the warning, Annie. Now maybe we can prepare by seeing to it that you are exiled to the island of putrid pundits. Sadly, there actually is no such island, but there are other ways to punish Coulter. Some have already had success waving off advertisers. But now I think it might be useful to hit her syndicator, Universal Press. They initially issued a non-response that declaimed responsibility because Coulter’s remarks were not part of a distributed column. But Universal also gave a clue as to what might actually move them to action:

“To date, we have not heard from any of her client newspapers about the verbal remark. Yes, her client list is still about 100.”

There are your orders. Feel free to complain to your local paper if they carry her column. Be sure to ask that they pass your concerns on to Universal Press. Wouldn’t it be nice to revisit this in a few months and find out that her client list had shrunk to 50?