An Open Letter To The ACU And CPAC Sponsors (Ann Coulter)

March 05, 2007 An Open Letter To The ACU And CPAC Sponsors Note: This letter will appear simultaneously on a number of conservative blogs this morning. It has been scheduled in advance for that purpose. My personal remarks will appear below.

Conservatism treats humans as they are, as moral creatures possessing rational minds and capable of discerning right from wrong. There comes a time when we must speak out in the defense of the conservative movement, and make a stand for political civility. This is one of those times.

Ann Coulter used to serve the movement well. She was telegenic, intelligent, and witty. She was also fearless: saying provocative things to inspire deeper thought and cutting through the haze of competing information has its uses. But Coulter's fearlessness has become an addiction to shock value. She draws attention to herself, rather than placing the spotlight on conservative ideas.

At the Conservative Political Action Conference in 2006, Coulter referred to Iranians as "ragheads." She is one of the most prominent women in the conservative movement; for her to employ such reckless language reinforces the stereotype that conservatives are racists.

At CPAC 2007 Coulter decided to turn up the volume by referring to John Edwards, a former U.S. Senator and current Presidential candidate, as a "faggot." Such offensive language--and the cavalier attitude that lies behind it--is intolerable to us. It may be tolerated on liberal websites but not at the nation's premier conservative gathering.

The legendary conservative thinker Richard Weaver wrote a book entitled Ideas Have Consequences. Rush Limbaugh has said again and again that "words mean things." Both phrases apply to Coulter's awful remarks.

Coulter's vicious word choice tells the world she care little about the feelings of a large group that often feels marginalized and despised. Her word choice forces conservatives to waste time defending themselves against charges of homophobia rather than advancing conservative ideas.

Within a day of Coulter's remark John Edwards sent out a fundraising email that used Coulter's words to raise money for his faltering campaign. She is helping those she claims to oppose. How does that advance any of the causes we hold dear?

Denouncing Coulter is not enough. After her "raghead" remark in 2006 she took some heat. Yet she did not grow and learn. We should have been more forceful. This year she used a gay slur. What is next? If Senator Barack Obama is the de facto Democratic Presidential nominee next year, will Coulter feel free to use a racial slur? How does that help conservatism?

One of the points of CPAC is the opportunity it gives college students to meet other young conservatives and learn from our leaders. Unlike on their campuses—where they often feel alone—at CPAC they know they are part of a vibrant political movement. What example is set when one highlight of the conference is finding out what shocking phrase will emerge from Ann Coulter's mouth? How can we teach young conservatives to fight for their principles with civility and respect when Ann Coulter is allowed to address the conference? Coulter's invective is a sign of weak thinking and unprincipled politicking.

CPAC sponsors, the Age of Ann has passed. We, the undersigned, request that CPAC speaking invitations no longer be extended to Ann Coulter. Her words and attitude simply do too much damage.

For more background on the Coulter appearance, one of CPAC's sponsors spoke about their reaction to last year's "ragheads" comment. Amy Ridenour of the National Center for Public Policy Research says that the ACU had given them the impression that they had addressed the issue with Coulter:

The National Center for Public Policy Research is one of very many co-sponsors of CPAC, and has been for some years. After Ann Coulter's offensive speech last year, we telephoned the organizers and strongly suggested that Ann Coulter's behavior was harmful to, and unrepresentative of, the conservative movement. We said we were considering pulling out our co-sponsorship because of Ann Coulter's "raghead" comment, and asked them to not invite Ann Coulter to speak in CPAC 2007, or, at the very least, only invite her if she was told to can the offensive speech, and explicitly agreed to do so. I had 90 percent decided to stop our co-sponsorship for CPAC 2007, but the sponsor seemed to be taking our concerns about Coulter's 2006 remarks seriously and with what seemed to us to be appropriate sympathy, so the National Center co-sponsored CPAC again this year. ... As has been widely reported, Ann Coulter not only once again went out of her way to use a nasty epithet, she pushed her offensiveness up a notch, using a word that is even more universally reviled than the derogatory term she hurled last year.

So, CPAC's sponsors either invited Coulter back without first getting her pledge that she would speak without using demeaning epithets, or they obtained her pledge, and she broke her word. ...

It would be better, in my opinion, to not have a CPAC at all than to have one that presents conservatism as a hostile, people-hating ideology. We conservatives have enough trouble overcoming the false things that are said about us without paying for a platform upon which we shoot ourselves annually in the foot.

Exactly. What the ACU did was provide a platform endorsed by a number of conservative groups to Coulter, who then abused it for her own purposes. If we are to tolerate speakers at such convocations using hateful and inflammatory language, then we're endorsing it and adopting it for our own. I'm not going to stand by and watch a movement that has the power to free people and protect liberty get hijacked by someone who treats us as a straight man for her own idea of a joke.

I have heard from a number of people that Coulter's remark was some sort of trenchant commentary on political correctness, defending the actor Isaiah Washington for his exile after using the word about one of his co-stars. First off, I was not aware that Washington's cause was of such concern for conservative activists; I must have missed that memo. Second, Washington fled to rehab to deflect some well-earned criticism, following Mel Gibson's example.

If Coulter had said, "I'd talk about Israel, but you can't say that the Jews control the Bush administration and cause all the wars without going into rehab," would she have so many defenders?

For the second year in a row, Coulter hijacked CPAC to get herself some headlines. The ACU was warned by at least one of their sponsors about that after last year, but either chose not to address it or got snowed again by Coulter. They need to cut off their association with her, or conservative organizations have to find a different organization for their conferences.

Lorrie Byrd of Wizbang
Ann Coulter Doesn't Speak For Me

http://wizbangblog.com/2007/03/03/ann-coulter-doesnt-speak-for-me.php
Ann Coulter has a brilliant mind. In her books and columns she makes excellent observations, often using humor to bring a point home. The fact that she is brilliant and has been such a forceful voice for conservatism in the past makes it all the more tragic, in the true sense of the word, when she makes stupid and outrageous statements like she did at CPAC this weekend.

In her speech to what was reportedly an enthusiastic crowd, Coulter made the following statement.

"I'd say something about John Edwards, but if you say 'faggot' you have to go to rehab."
That is a stupid, not even funny, excuse for a joke and it isn't the first time Coulter has made an outrageous and inappropriate comment. Last year at CPAC it was a comment about "ragheads" from Coulter that made news. From her last book, it was a comment about the 9/11 widows enjoying their husbands' deaths that got lots of attention from the mainstream media.

My friend Bruce at Gay Patriot makes the following observation.

But let me offer this observation: I have no doubt that Ann's remarks will make all of the national news networks and will be endlessly repeated. Fine. They should be assailed.

But why the complete silence by the same networks on the Leftist Bloggers cheering the attempted assassination of the Vice President of the United States?

I know, I know....consistency and ethics are too much to ask for from our news media these days. Meanwhile, Ann Coulter can go away.

Bruce is completely correct about the double standard, and that makes it all the more infuriating when Coulter makes outrageous and inappropriate statements. She certainly has the right to say what she did. Those of us on the right who disagree with her comments have not only the right, but the responsibility to speak out as well.

For all the good Ann Coulter has done in the past, I fear her recent comments have already negated much of it, and risk doing damage to the conservative movement that will take years to undo. Ann Coulter is one of the most recognizable faces of the conservative movement and when she says something that plays into the stereotype of conservatives as nasty bigots and homophobes, she gives invaluable ammunition to those on the left.

I have cheered Ann Coulter in the past when I have agreed with her. I have also spoken out when I have disagreed with her. Any conservative who does not agree with her recent comments should speak out now, as loudly and forcefully as possible. Ann Coulter knows the power of words and she knows how closely all of her words are scrutinized. Those of us who have any kind of forum to speak on behalf of the conservative movement need to realize that our agreement, disagreement or silence will be scrutinized as well.

One of the biggest differences I notice between those on the left and right is how they treat those in their ranks when they step out of line. I was critical of John Edwards' campaign recently for hiring bloggers Amanda Marcotte and Melissa McEwan. Most of the reaction from the left blogosphere to the Edwards' blogger story was to defend Marcotte and McEwan, rather than to understand a need to distance themselves from the anti-religious rhetoric many associate with those on the left.

As hard as conservatives and Republicans have worked to convince the public that the negative stereotypes they have been fed by the media are wrong, it is devastating to have someone in the conservative movement as well known as Ann Coulter throw out a one liner that reinforces those stereotypes.

The "faggot" comment from Ann Coulter is sure to get lots of play in the left blogosphere and in the mainstream media. I wish she had never said it. She is smart and knows better. She did say it though, so now conservatives have a decision to make. We can ignore it and pretend it never happened and let ourselves be associated with the comment and with those Coulter has made in the past. Or we can seize the opportunity to vigorously denounce it. We can make it known loud and clear, in no uncertain terms, that we do not agree with such language or sentiments.

So, as loudly and clearly as I can say it -- Ann Coulter does not speak for me.

Update: John Edwards could have taken the high road, or simply played the victim card as so many Democrats do, but instead he used the Coulter comment to raise campaign cash. He would have a hard enough time getting terribly indignant after refusing to fire two bloggers with extensive histories of making anti-religious statements. By using the incident to raise money, he could have actually succeeded in turning it into a negative for his campaign.

Update II: Jay Tea has written a post (somewhat) in defense of Ann Coulter. I just read Jay's piece and agree with most of what he says. If you have not already read his piece, please do. I completely understand the role of bombthrowers in politics -- who will say things no one else will say and stir the pot and challenge people's comfort zone. I just don't think those people need to be the most recognized faces of conservatism and constantly paraded on television as speaking for conservatives. When it comes to making "edgy" comments, there are some issues (race and homosexuality for example) about which conservatives don't need bombthrowers pitching out quotes that will reinforce negative stereotypes. Those negative comments will be identified with conservatives for who knows how long regardless of how hard we try to put forward a positive image.

Ann Coulter has done much good for the conservative movement, but conservatives have also done a lot for her personally. I believe that with the high profile she has achieved, comes a responsibility, when speaking at a conservative event, to do better than a throw away line about "faggots" that we will all be stuck with for years to come.

Others blogging:

Dean Barnett
Hot Air - with video
Captain's Quarters
Outside the Beltway
Ace of Spades
Jennifer Rubin
Bob Owens
Sister Toldjah rounds up examples of nutroots double standards.
Sean Hackbarth
Emperor Misha disagrees with me and other conservatives denouncing Coulter's comment, then makes the following comment and links to my favorite John Edwards video: "There was absolutely NO reason to insult homosexuals like that, Ann. I know and have known quite a few gays in my life, and I have yet to meet one as effeminate as My Little Pony Edwards. Heck, I've yet to meet any women as effeminate as The Breck Girl."
John Hawkins says Coulter's comment was selfish and that she should apologize.
Kirsten Powers makes the Marcotte/McEwan comparison also.
Rick Moran has written, and suggests others write, to television networks asking they no longer book Coulter.
Bull Dog Pundit says politicians were right to distance themselves from her and that anyone defending her comments is foolish.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.