Ann Coulter vs. WND and the right’s new priorities

Washington Examiner ^ | 8/21/2010 | Matthew Sheffield

[markomalley]

An intra-conservative war broke out this week between Ann Coulter and WorldNetDaily after the site disinvited the well-known writer from a conference it was hosting after it learned that she had agreed to speak at a similar event sponsored by gay conservatives.

Coulter had agreed to be a featured speaker at “Homocon 2010,” an event put together by GOProud, a group of conservatives and libertarians who are gay or support gay rights, a position which WorldNetDaily saw as improperly validating “a brand of materialistic libertrianism” according to the site’s editor Joseph Farah.

“Ultimately, as a matter of principle, it would not make sense for us to have Ann speak to a conference about ‘taking America back’ when she clearly does not recognize that the ideals to be espoused there simply do not include the radical and very ‘unconservative’ agenda represented by GOProud,” Farah said in a statement posted on WorldNetDaily’s website.

After being dumped in a very public fashion, Coulter shot back via email to Daily Caller reporter Chris Moody saying that as a public figure she was willing to speak to all kinds of groups with whom she disagrees and that WND had dropped her for publicity reasons only. She also blasted Farah for promoting the idea that President Barack Obama was not born in the United States and is thus ineligible to be elected president, an idea commonly derided as “birtherism.”

“He could give less than two sh-ts [sic] about the conservative movement — as demonstrated by his promotion of the birther nonsense (long ago disproved by my newspaper, Human Events, also Sweetness & Light, American Spectator and National Review etc, etc etc). He’s the only allegedly serious conservative pushing the birther thing. For ONE reason: to get hits on his website.”

The Coulter-Farah tiff has attracted a good deal of attention but one group has been particularly quiet on the matter. Conservative blogger Matt Lewis emailed a number of prominent social conservatives for comment but got few responses.  As Lewis noted at the end of an item he wrote yesterday:

“Despite reaching out to social conservative activists and groups, few were interested in commenting on this story — a point which is, in itself, telling. Several young conservatives I spoke with also drew a sharp distinction between opposition to gay marriage and being ‘anti-gay.’ And many who oppose gay marriage said they would be fine with domestic partnerships or civil unions.”

Lewis’s point on this subject echoes one made by the Politico’s Jonathan Martin and Ben Smith: in the age of Obama, the size of government has become issue that animates people:

Much of the right — including the noisy and influential tea party movement — sees greater and more immediate danger from this administration and Congress on issues related to the role of government and the very meaning of America than from the old “social issues.” For while Obama has avoided single-issue fights on issues such as gays in the military and federal funding of abortions — angering parts of his base, in the process — he has, in the minds of conservatives, pushed a comprehensive agenda, and that is far more threatening. [...]

One influential figure, Fox News’s Glenn Beck, reacted with visible incredulity when fellow Fox host Bill O’Reilly asked him whether he considered same-sex marriage “a threat the country.”

“Will the gays come and get us?” Beck asked. “I believe what Thomas Jefferson said. If it neither breaks my leg nor picks my pocket, what difference is it to me?”

”Honestly, I think we have bigger fish to fry,” he continued. “You can argue about abortion or gay marriage or whatever all you want. The country is burning down.”

There’s lots more in the piece that I think is accurate however Martin and Smith incorrectly conflate the issue of gay marriage and other non-economic political topics. I’d say that the decline of conservative opposition to gay unions/marriage is perhaps the only social issue where there’s been an actual shift of opinion. On the other more traditional issues, if there has been a shift in the country’s opinion, it’s been toward the right.

Last year, according to Gallup, for the first time ever, a majority of Americans identified themselves as pro-life. Similarly, the growing debate over immigration, concern about the role of Islam in politics, and skepticism about far-left racialists like Jeremiah Wright show that American conservatives’ appetite for social issues has not diminished. They simply aren’t as interested in opposing things like gay unions, marriage or blocking homosexuals from military service.

There are plenty of reasons for this shift: the growing pugnacity of the professional gay left against foes like the Mormon church likely intimidates some. That can’t account for it all, however, especially for someone like Glenn Beck, a man who routinely addresses all kinds of controversial topics and is also a Mormon himself.

I’d say there are two main reasons for this shift: the first being that as gay marriage has become legal in several states and other countries, people have noticed that the world hasn’t ended. Fire did not come down from heaven to destroy Vermont or Massachusetts. Last we heard, Mexico, South Africa, and all of the other countries that have recognized same-sex marriages are still standing. Anyone who thought that this was going to be a problem has clearly been proven wrong.

The second reason is that in the face of treasury-crushing debt, unending bailouts, union cronyism, and a failed “charm offensive” foreign policy, is it any wonder that conservatives aren’t particularly interested in the minuscule number of same-gendered people who want to call themselves married?

It’s also worth noting that for her part, Coulter is actually an opponent of same-sex marriage but she correctly realizes that being homosexual has nothing at all to do with one’s political ideology. One can feel very strongly that same-sex marriage is wrong but to assert as Farah does that gay people cannot be conservative is the height of absurdity and just as preposterous as saying that everyone who opposes gay marriage is an mind-numbed robot. There is more than enough room in the conservative movement for each side of the gay marriage debate.

[Brilliant]

Not sure what WND is thinking.

[RetiredArmy]

I quit reading Joseph’s site long ago.

[spyone]

The author claims Obama’s birth has been confirmed in the US. Has it? Would like to read those articles.

[La Lydia]

THOUGHTCRIME!

[cpray]

as has been stated on this site hundreds of times....homosexuals can be fiscally conservative, but cannot be socially conservative. homosexuality and the homosexual agenda is infiltrating every aspect of our society and is another contributor to the decay of our country. i will not be party to it, and neither should ann coulter.

[Tainan]

meooooooowww!

[EternalVigilance]

There is more than enough room in the conservative movement Republican Party for each side of the gay marriage debate.

In the conservative movement, no.

[Right Brother]

I have a real problem with an event called ‘Homocon 2010’. Identity politics is not conservative.

[bereanway]

“He could give less than two sh-ts [sic] about the conservative movement — as demonstrated by his promotion of the birther nonsense (long ago disproved by my newspaper, Human Events, also Sweetness & Light, American Spectator and National Review etc, etc etc).”

What is this disproof Coulter speaks about?

Also, isn’t Ann supposedly friends with Bill Maher. That gives me the willys. I can’t stand to even be in the electronic presence of that arrogant little pri*k. I don’t care how nice he might be off the set, I still could never abide his presence.

[RonDog]

Coulter had agreed to be a featured speaker at “Homocon 2010,” an event put together by GOProud, a group of conservatives and libertarians who are gay or support gay rights, a position which WorldNetDaily saw as improperly validating “a brand of materialistic libertrianism” according to the site’s editor Joseph Farah.

Got it.

So Ann cannot appear with ANYONE who does not completely share her political positions -- without "improperly validating" them.

Well then, it looks like she is a MULTIPLE repeat offender. :o)

Here, for example, is Ann "improperly validating" the harridans on "The View" --

What are the odds that she does not similarly challenge the core beliefs of the Homocon crowd -- when she appears before them?

[trisham]

I have a real problem with an event called ‘Homocon 2010’. Identity politics is not conservative.

**************************

Agreed.

[Vincent Jappi]

What is most disquieting in Ann Coulter’s positions is that she is a Constitutional expert.

If she doesn’t care that the “gay marriage” lobby is trying to usurp the legislative process through the promotion of judicial tyranny,

if she doesn’t care that the alleged “president” was never eligible, is not president, and that simply stating that fact might stop the nightmare which his usurpation is,

then on what more issues can she sell out?

[Extremely Extreme Extremist]

Farah could have disagreed with Ann privately instead of making it publicly.

The ironic thing about Ann is that she's not the fire-breathing right-winger that her critics portray her to be. She has spoken at tons of liberal colleges, dated liberals, supported liberals like Romney, and has liberal elitist friends in the media. She is quite possibly the most open-minded and tolerant conservative in the movement.

Ann is right. The majority of homosexuals just want to be left alone. They are pro-business, fiscal conservatives, supporter of gun rights, and most of them don't care that others are socially conservative as long as they don't breathe down their neck telling them that they're going to Hell at every turn.

This is not an endorsement of their lifestyle. It's the fact that you have a militant minority within the group who are lapdogs for the Left just like the NAACP "represents" blacks and NOW "represents" women. Ann is smart enough to recognize this and realizes that advancing freedom for everyone is far more important than stopping a faction of the Left.

[thethirddegree]

Queers and real conservatism don’t sleep together.

[alicewonders]

I am somewhat torn by the issue. On the one hand, I agree that we have more “pressing issues” going on right now, and that we don’t need to be distracted by the gay marriage issue. I also have several friends that are gay and I don’t hate them, although I hate the lifestyle that they lead. I do think they are troubled individuals that have issues from early on, in regards with the emotional absence of a father or mother. I don’t think being gay is “normal”, I think it is a mental disorder.

I don’t like the promotion of a gay lifestyle in our schools and everywhere else - not at all!

On the other hand, what consenting adults do in privacy - as long as it does not hurt anyone else - is not my business and I do not care to make it my business.

I think marriage is a sacrament, but I don’t care if a couple wants to take their relationship to a higher level with a “civil union” or whatever else they want to call it. (I do think that most of these gay marriages are only done as an “in your face” statement though, and I think that is disgusting.)

I don’t think the gay agenda has any place in politics, period. We are talking about a person’s private sexual habits, it is something that should never enter our political or legislative discourse. I really just wish people would quit talking about it - I REALLY don’t want to know - I REALLY don’t care, as long as they don’t rub my face in it.

Having said all of that, and I hope I won’t get flamed - but I have wondered if Ann isn’t gay herself. She doesn’t seem to have a lot of relationships with men. I don’t care, one way or the other, but I do wonder about it from time to time.

[onedoug]

You´ve got that right.

[aSeattleConservative]

So Ann cannot appear with ANYONE who does not completely share her political positions -- without "improperly validating" them.

There is a difference between going on a talk show and speaking with mindless liberals about various subjects, and talking to a group of sexual deviants who are proud of their chosen sexual perversion.

[Iscool]

“He could give less than two sh-ts [sic] about the conservative movement — as demonstrated by his promotion of the birther nonsense (long ago disproved by my newspaper, Human Events

I have generally sided with Ann Coulter on issues but if this is a defining factor for Ann as to who is conservative and who is not, then I'll proudly be a conservative defector...

Fortunately Ann Coulter doesn't get to define who is conservative and who is not...

[Ol' Sparky]

What is WND thinking? That Coulter shouldn't be giving legitimacy to a group whose priorities are to promote a homosexual agenda, one that threats religious freedom, freedom of association and parental rights, and make an issue of their sexuality? That isn't acceptable.