Posted on 03/07/2007 6:28:29 AM PST by MadIvan
In the run-up to the fateful election of 2008, conservatives face a clear-cut choice: we can rebuild our movement as a broad-ranging, mainstream coalition and restore our governing majority, or else settle for a semi-permanent role as angry, doom-speaking complainers on the fringes of American politics and culture.
We can either invite doubters and moderates to join with us in new efforts to affirm American values, or we can push them away because they fail to measure up to our own standards of indignation and ideological purity.
In short, we must choose between addition and subtraction: either building our cause by adding to our numbers or destroying it by discouraging all but the fiercest ideologues.
No political party or faction has ever thrived based on purges and insults and internal warfare, but too many activists on the right seem determined to reduce the conservative cause to self-righteous irrelevance.
The most recent outrage involving Ann Coulter provides a revealing example of the self-destructive tendencies of some dedicated partisans on the right. Addressing the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) in Washington, D.C., the best-selling author and glamorous Time magazine cover girl declared: “I was going to have a few comments about the other Democratic candidate for President, John Edwards, but 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 Edwards.”
Some members of the audience gasped as she deployed the forbidden slur, but many others laughed and applauded. Naturally, Democratic Chair Howard Dean and many others pounced on the incident as another example of conservative viciousness and bigotry, demanding that all Republican Presidential candidates dissociate themselves from Coulter’s comments.
This challenge creates a miserable dilemma for every GOP contender. If the candidate ignores the controversy, he looks gutless and paralyzed in the face of obviously inappropriate and over-the-top insults. If he condemns Coulter, he looks like he’s wimping out to the liberal establishment and offends right-wing true believers who feel instinctively protective of Ann the Outrageous. Any comment by a presidential candidate also refocuses the national conversation on the absurd and unacceptable suggestion that John Edwards is secretly gay.
To paraphrase the old line attributed to Talleyrand: this smear amounts to worse than a crime, it is a blunder. John Edwards deserves contempt and derision on many counts, and I go after him (regularly) on my radio show for his extreme left wing positions on foreign policy and health care, his shameless opportunism, even his long history as a fabulously wealthy and floridly hypocritical ambulance-chasing attorney. Ann Coulter could have found plenty to say about the former North Carolina Senator without invoking the dreaded f-word (all right, the other dreaded f-word).
In fact, Edwards has been a visibly loyal husband to Elizabeth, his wife of more than 29 years, who’s currently battling breast cancer. Together, they’ve brought five children into the world, including a son who died in a tragic traffic accident at age 16. Drawing attention to Edwards’ personal life and away from his policies only helps Edwards and harms conservatives.
In other words, the lame attempt to question the Senator’s sexual orientation is precisely the wrong attack, and Coulter herself is most certainly the wrong attacker. If this issue continues to attract attention, indignant liberals will no doubt point out that the devoted family man from North Carolina exemplifies traditional values far more notably than the mini-skirted, never-married provocateur from the right.
Personally, I like and admire Ann Coulter, and I’ve always defended her in the past – even when liberals gleefully quoted out-of-context from her recent bestseller “Godless” to make it sound as if she suggested that 9/11 widows wanted their own husbands to die and celebrated their fiery deaths. Her caustic humor often upstages her serious and substantive political points, as did the notorious headline “They Shot the Wrong Lincoln” appended to her column attacking her fellow Republican, Rhode Island Senator Lincoln Chafee. That one opinion piece didn’t doom Chafee’s re-election bid, but movement conservatives like Coulter and many others expressed the desire for his defeat—a loss that insured the Democrats’ one-vote margin in the Senate.
Reasonable people can disagree about the wisdom of concentrating fire on a fellow Republican (even a liberal GOP’er like Linc Chafee) but there can be no argument about the purely destructive impact of Coulter’s sneering slur against Edwards. How could such a nasty shot possibly assist the conservative cause? Which potential Republican supporters would feel motivated or mobilized by her casual use of the term “faggot”? How could a smart woman expect anything other than a disgusted and negative response for her implication that a long-married father of five deserved outing as a homosexual?
The Coulter commentary (and the subsequent applause) reinforced the public image of conservatives as unreasonably hostile to gay people in general, not just opposed to the dubious particulars of the so-called “gay rights” agenda. In fact, exit polls showed that self-identified gay people made up 4% of the total electorate in the incomparably close election of 2000, and nearly one third of those homosexual voters cast their ballots for George W. Bush. In other words, more than a million gay citizens voted for Bush-Cheney, in a race that ultimately turned on a mere 527 votes in Florida, and a national margin in the popular vote of just 537,000 for Gore.
What sense does it make for a featured speaker at a conservative conference to deliver gratuitous insult and offense to that stalwart minority of homosexuals who still choose to cast their lot with Republicans, despite the party’s impassioned (and appropriate) opposition to gay marriage?
By the same token, how does it help for one of the nation’s highest profile conservative talk hosts to use his broadcast on the Martin Luther King holiday to insult the fallen hero as unworthy of federal commemoration? Yes, the overwhelming majority of African-Americans votes incurably Democratic, but in 2004, Bush still drew well over a million-and-a-half black votes. It doesn’t help these courageous dissenters from politically correct orthodoxy if loud voices on the right make them wonder whether Jesse Jackson and Howard Dean are right about the racism of Republicans.
Finally, the most serious challenge of all involves the rapidly growing and increasingly prosperous Latino communities. Were it not for his competitive showing among Hispanics (with some 35% of their votes in 2000, and above 40% in 2004), Bush wouldn’t even have come close to victory, either time.
Meanwhile, elements of the President’s party seem perversely determined to make sure that no future Republican repeats this success with the nation’s fastest growing minority group. Imagine how naturalized Hispanic citizens, or even native-born Latinos might feel, at the suggestion that their cousins amount to an “invading army” bent on destroying America, or the common equation of terrorists (who have all been legal U.S. entrants by the way) and those who enter the country to care for our children and mow our lawns. Anti-immigrant rhetoric (which increasingly dispenses with any distinction between legal and illegal arrivals) provoked a disastrous shift of Latino voters away from the GOP in 2006. If Republicans continue to draw just 20% of Hispanic votes they will never regain control of Congress and stand scant chance of retaining the White House. Nativist posturing (like Congressman Tom Tancredo’s obnoxious slogan, “America Is Full”) may play well with some elements of the conservative base but it could easily doom Republicans to permanent minority status.
Obviously, the future of the conservative movement and of the Republic itself requires GOP recruitment of more Latinos, Blacks and gays, and anything that stands in the way of such participation fatally undermines the party’s future.
The situation hardly requires retreat and retrenchment on key issues of principle in the vague hope of winning more minority support.
Republicans don’t need to drop our implacable opposition to gay marriage in order reach out to gays.
We don’t need to reverse our criticism of race-based quotas in order to bring more black involvement in the party.
And we certainly don’t need to endorse automatic amnesty or “open borders” as a way to connect with Latino voters – but we might want to avoid widespread public advertising for games like “Find the Illegal Immigrant” (devised by a College Republicans chapter in New York City) or giving undeserved respect to crackpot fringe groups like the scandal-tainted “Minute Man Civil Defense Corps.”.
On all the important issues, it’s not substance that needs to change, it’s style.
Republicans need to return to the open, expansive conservatism of Ronald Reagan: more concerned with bringing in newcomers than driving out dissenters, more committed to winning elections than to scoring points in arguments, more determined to steer the government in the right direction than to sit at the sidelines carping about inevitable decline. We should make skeptics feel welcome as Republicans and urge them to fight the issues inside the party where they can have the most impact.
Every major event, every potential speaker, every resolution, every specific approach, deserves evaluation in terms of effectiveness in party building—winning new adherents to the cause.
We should ask a crucial question before we speak or act: will this draw people to conservative ideas and ideals, or will it serve to turn them off and push them away?
It’s not a matter of pandering; it’s an expression of practical politics. At this crucial juncture, conservatives need to recall the obvious point that you strengthen your cause most effectively when you’re appealing, not appalling.
So what? Lots of black folks use the N word, too. Doesn't mean it's all right for decent conversation. Doesn't mean someone who is not black can call a black person that. It's offensive.
Can't you see that?
While I agree with his assessment of the Coulter comment but whole heartedly disagree with his characterization of the Minute Men .
It is fight or wind up in reeducation centers time folks! With the Libby conviction it is the attempt by the leftists in this country to criminalize being a conservative.
It really is.
But that's not going to satisfy the left.
They will not be satisfied until the gay rights agenda becomes equivalent to the blacks struggle for equal rights.
It really is as simple as that.
That's a good way of phrasing it.
Sad that most people will never see it coming.
I agree, politics is not like marriage, where as one of the stars on a tv sitcom says' Marriage is about compromise, so when my wife wanted a cat, and I didn't want a cat, we got a cat.' Or something like that. You compromise your belief, it is not your belief any more. Why vote for something you don't believe? Vote for what you think is right and you will have no regrets. Politics is not like handicapping a horse race.
Exactly Ramcat and even more so not just the gay agenda. To achieve our objectives we will control all written words, speech and thoughts.
Could be the boy is a RINO...
RINO's instinctly HATE ANN Coulter..
The joke went right over his head.. ZOOOM..
Yeah... Medved's on the down low.. hes a RINO..
I can see that you aren't truly interested in a rational discussion. You have never bothered to even try to address any of my very thoughtful arguments. You are too addicted to your feelings of moral superiority to even entertain the possibility that you might have hold of the wrong end of the stick here.
The man who had to go to rehab for actually calling a homosexual "a faggot" -- and meaning it as a slut against him, since he was a homosexual -- just got the NAACP's "Image Award" for being a great role model.
Meanwhile, Ann Coulter is being burned at the stake (with faggots) for joking about him and the absurdity of it all.
All of the hysteria about Coulter's joke simply proves the truth of her joke.
And some people, including you, can't see the irony of that. Or, rather, you refuse to see it. You're having too much fun being a moral superior.
But in reality all you are doing is carrying the water for the media and their DNC masters.
George Soros thanks you. He has been trying to knock off Ann Coulter for years.
You're scaring me.
Bill would mandate nicer term for illegals
TALLAHASSEE -- A state legislator whose district is home to thousands of Caribbean immigrants wants to ban the term "illegal alien" from the state's official documents.
http://www.news-press.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070227/NEWS01/70227062/1075
I'm not buying!
Point me to an argument you'd like me to take up.
I never thought it would come to this. Being accused of being addicted to my own moral superiority simply because I don't believe it necessary or prudent to use the word "faggot" in public.
All of the hysteria about Coulter's joke simply proves the truth of her joke. And some people, including you, can't see the irony of that. Or, rather, you refuse to see it. You're having too much fun being a moral superior.
The point of her joke is not that we should all be free to say "faggot" all day long. And it isn't "irony" to see that her associating her "joke" with John Edwards was a stupid thing to do.
Answer me this, as no one has yet on this thread. Would you rather lose an election with no votes from homosexuals, or win with the support of homosexuals who like small gov't or tax cuts or national defense?
"Answer me this, as no one has yet on this thread. Would you rather lose an election with no votes from homosexuals, or win with the support of homosexuals who like small gov't or tax cuts or national defense?"
I'll answer that question right after you answer mine which I brought up earlier. Why are you bashing someone who has brought more homosexuals into the conservative movement than any other single individual?
Coulter is no gay basher. The homosexuals know that. Usually around here and at lefty sites she is accused of being a "fag hag."
She has written and spoken regularly against homosexual discrimination, etc. And the vast majority of the positive (or at least fair) press she has gotten from the mainstream media has come from homosexual reporters.
"It is you who must set fire to the faggots you have brought." That is a quote, meaning that you are the one who is being blinded by your prejudices.
And, again, where were you when Coulter called Al Gore a fag on national TV? Where was your outrage? Where was the media's?
Where are the poll numbers showing homosexuals leaving the GOP in droves because of that?
Quite imagining a huge problem where there is none. It is a faux controversy dreamt up by the DNC controlled media and some bloggers who wish they were headlining at CPAC instead of Coulter.
What evidence do you have of that?
I am not bashing Coulter. I am bashing the people here who can not see that throwing around offensive words is not way to attract people to a movement.
Coulter is an entertainer and a self-promoter. She went over the line on this one. She knows that.
The folks here who teach their children to call people "faggots" and defend the right to offend in the name of "conservatism" make me sick. You don't have to be a repugnant, hate-filled cretin in order to be conservative. It's abot preserving civilization and the Republic, neither of which hinge on the right to hurl invectives at homosexuals.
Disagree with you here, Ivan. Yes, AC fan speaking.
"of the Republic itself requires GOP recruitment of more Latinos, Blacks and gays,":
This equivocation by the drama queen conservatives (Malkin, Hewitt, the unknown (and wildly unread) "convervative bloggers," and Medved) is precisely the cant that AC is exposing with her lampoon of Edwards. Neat how Medved lumps (latinos, which I suppose could my myself, blacks, and gays) into one homogeneous mass--reminds me of the old Dr. Suess fable "The Lorax" . . . I speak for the Trees!"--assuming the argument of other anti-AC's that anyone speaks for the disparate group of people who vote (R) in the election.
And that point is wrong.
That actor went into rehab as an *excuse* for why he said something unforgivable to a co-worker.
He was wrong to call his co-worker a faggot, that worker was insulted.
OK, so you and Ann are going to represent the folks who think calling others a 'faggot' is acceptable.
I'm on the other side of the fence.
We'll see how that works for ya, I suppose.
:-)
:-D
So everyone who disagrees with you is a leftist -- regardless of our actual political positions.
Or -- a small fraction of people from all sides believe in being rude and tacky to others. That small group is here being loud defending Ann "cuz she's on our side".
You stick with the side that believes calling others a "faggot" is ok. I'll stick with the folks who believe calling others a "faggot" is bad.
"unforgivable"
How dramatic! How about usurping freedom is that "unforgivable'?
Do you agree with outlawing the term Illegal Alien? How about just using it in public discourse? At a public meeting?
The Reagan Revolution was won because he faced Jimmy Carter and Walter Mondale.
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.