An Open Letter to CPAC Sponsors and Organizers Regarding Ann Coulter

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.

Credentialed CPAC 2007 Bloggers

Sean Hackbarth, The American Mind
James Joyner, Outside the Beltway
BoiFromTroy, Boi From Troy
Joy McCann, Little Miss Attila
Kevin McCullough, Musclehead Revolution
Fausta Werz, Fausta’s blog
Patrick Hynes, Ankle Biting Pundits
Ed Morrissey, Captain's Quarters                                                                                                            Jane Stewart, seejanemom             

Other Right-of-Center Bloggers
Owen Robinson, Boots and Sabres
BLOGGER OF THE YEAR, N.Z. Bear, The Truth Laid Bear
Michael Demmons, Gay Orbit
Mark Coffey, Decision ‘08
Russell Newquist, The Philosopher’s Stone

[More signatories to come. If you’re a conservative weblogger who feels the same way I do please post this letter to your weblog. Send me a link and a trackback, and I will add your name to the list.]

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

JANE APPENDS: For those new to The Realm, let me share these few words. I blogged Ann's original reference to the Grey's Anatomy star back on JANUARY 25th, when I asked, WHO OWNS THE WORD "FAGGOT"?? in a post called

SPEECH THERAPY (HERE).

Read it.

You will understand that Jane does not equivocate on Freedom of Speech to anyone.

NO ONE SIGNED TO THIS LETTER IS ASKING FOR HER TO APOLOGIZE. SO PLEASE READ THE LETTER CRITICALLY>>>>>>>and don't make me spoon feed you guys.

IT IS SIMPLY AND NO MORE COMPLICATED THAN WE FEEL THAT SOMETIMES SHE IS NOT HELPFUL AS WE FIGHT BEING STEREOTYPED BY THE LEFT anymore than a rap artist using the word "nigger" helps raise the stock of black Americans. {And YES , I SAID it...it is a word, not a slur in this context and I think saying "the 'N' word" when you mean "nigger" is like saying "H-E- double toothpick" when you MEAN "HELL". Its LANGUAGE folks.Roll around in it. Make it your own.}

I revel in Ann Coulter's beauty, wit, and intelligence as much as the next downtrodden Conservative. I have read all her books. I will continue to watch her on the "Half Hour News Hour" on FOX and laugh my ass off.

JUST NOT ON A SPONSORED STAGE AT CPAC. 

So there is no more to see here>>>>>>move along>>>>>>>>>>>>>

And we don't rightfully call Edwards "The Silky Pony" for nothing.

Comments

[Brennan]

Jane, What's Your email address?

[PRCalDude]

Ann is very difficult to figure out. I though "Godless" was brilliant. She gave a well reasoned defense of creationism and poked quite a few holes in evolutionism.

I have no idea how she thinks she can claim to be a Christian and then say some of the things she does. I think Bryan Preston was right when he said that she does it to sell books.

On the other hand, we need to drop the idea that homosexuals are an oppressed, despised minority. They are not. The average income for homosexual men is about $20k higher than for heterosexual men. They have political clout and are popular in, well, pop culture. If anything, they're a priviledged minority. That language needs to be removed from the open letter.

[Sniper One]

Ann just needs to purchase the equivalent of “Carbon Credits” for her offensiveness.

I don't find Ann remarks any less offensive than any thing said by John Kerry, Jack Murtha, Kieth Olbermann, Bill Maher, or Michael Moore.

I don't see a need to attack our own when the left has far more "Ann's" than we do.

[rhino-itall]

I'm with the sniper on this one. How many homosexual iranians do we think are voting republican anyway? I say it was a joke, and it was funny if you ask me. I will turn on Coulter only if she apologizes and says she was misquoted by the vast left wing conspiracy, until then i got her back.

[JANE SAYS: No apology. That is dumb. But THAT SHE SAID IT ON A SPONSORED STAGE is the beef. She can allude to him being a sissy-assed diaper wearing wuss ON HER OWN TIME, but NOT ON A STAGE SPEAKING FOR ME. She gave the John Edwards campaign their SINGLE BIGGEST DAY OF ONLINE DONATIONS with her selfish stunt. See?

SHE MIGHT WISH IT TO BE TRUE-----BUT NOT HELPFUL TO SAY IN FULL VIEW OF THE LEFT. She wouldn't dare do that in a BOOK where she could be SUED FOR LIBEL, would she?

Yes, I understand your loyalty. I AM RIGHT THERE WITH YOU! I want the pusses at the RNC to stand up and FIGHT BACK FOR WHAT THE BASE is thinking. Just not THIS way, you know?]

[Chuck]

Very well put letter. I don't think what Ann's comments were offensive or rude. The problem is that she gives the left plenty of ammunition to fire back. And the left wing media is eager to get that ammunition and fire it back at us and because the majority of news outlets have left-wing agendas, they will make the most of it. Check out the Fox News website, you'll see an article about Bill Maher's disgusting comments, but do a search on MSNBC, nothing. But there's an article on the front page about Coulter's comments. She could of just called him the "Silky Pony" and gotten a laugh and caused less controversy.

[TOM COLLINS]

I PROBABLY WOULD NOT CALL JOHN EDWARDS A FAG. AMBULANCE CHASING P---Y MIGHT BE MORE APPROPRIATE.

[JANE SAYS: CONCUR! But I still wouldn't do it on a sponsored stage. On my own time, I say that very thing with disturbing frequency. ;) ]

[Zee]

Will you people grow up. Coulter might be acerbic but she hardly deserves this. This sounds more like a Kos kids stunt than anything I'd expect to see from mature adults, conservative or otherwise. It's disheartening to see so called conservatives getting prissy over inconsequential non-issues. Taking a page from CAIR is what this nonsense amounts to.

[JANE SAYS: PLEASE UNDERSTAND, it is the FORUM FOR HER COMMENTS that we object to. Standing up on a SPONSORED STAGE and saying "faggot" IN OUR NAME is the selfish part. Many on the Right want our party to get some balls. I don't blame them, but this CANNOT be the way we do it. Now we surely LOOK NO BETTER than the Libs. The Libs may rally around Amanda Marchotte and her GODBAG comments. But INTELLECTUALLY HONEST CONSERVATIVES POLICE THEMSELVES.

We eat our own for something this bad. We HAVE TO TO KEEP OUR CREDIBILITY. Our Log Cabin Conservatives deserve better.

Would you be so casual if she said "NIGGER"?

[c.a. Marks]

I'm curious....did everyone laugh, at first, at her commentary during CPAC? And then only later decide to speak out against her?

[JANE SAYS: NO. And that is what is so creepy about it. Go to HOTAIR and listen to the disproportionate lack of laughter after her punchline. NOBODY thought it was appropriate. Nervously funny, but not FUNNY.]

[c.a. Marks]

I also meant to ask, did anyone boo her off the stage?

[JANE SAYS: No--just stunned nervous teetering. No LAUGHTER.]

[locomotivebreath1901]

Krykee! Everybody! Out of the pool.

PUHLEEEZE tell me the conservative movement has not given itself over to namby-bamby-hand-wringing-leftist-we-can't-upset-anyone-PC crap.

All conservatives need to get a grip!

This is a bone thrown to the leftist hounds; A red herring for the moonbats to sate their blood lust; a torn panty to anger richard simons. (any other mixed metaphores I can abuse?)

Ann has simply fallen into the category of useful idiot with her calloused remarks. Faggot is a gutter term used to describe an effiminate man, a girly boy, a pansy. Homos themselves toss that word around like, well... like homos. And mr. edwards would never be mistaken for one of ~those.

Black folks pepper their language toward each other with the 'N' word. Dancing girls call each other the 'B' word like it was heavily medicated eye shadow.

But because mr. edwards is a parasite, uh..lawyer, everybody is busting their cojones to make sure that the WHOLE FRIGGIN WE DON'T GIVE A CRAP world KNOWS neo-cons don't approve!!

And guess what?! The unhinged, leftist utopian screaming deanie baby moonbats don't give a rank bath house about how contrite or sincere all the neo-cons have become. They were prejudiced, bigotted and hateful of neocons before Ann, and they STILL ARE!

Heck, I wouldn't be surprised if some of them called for the untimely death of the VP.

Now, THAT would be a scandel.

[JANE SAYS: I don't agree with wanting an APOLOGY. She is Ann. COULTER. Who did they think they were letting loose up there?? But using a PAID PLATFORM for that kind of selfishness is NOT acceptable. No different than if she had said "NIGGER" is MY point.

For all your railing against "PC", you said "'N' word". I am sure it was probably to dodge the comment filter, but that word is not forbidden here, if not USED as an epithet. But when I mean to reference the word "nigger" as a WORD, I say it. I refuse to say "N Word" because THAT is REEEEDAMNEDICULOUS.]

[Donkeyhue]

Were talking about Ann Coulter right????

I wonder how many of the signatories waited in line at her book signing?

I love ya Jane, but I think this letter is off base. I understand your point about the "sponsorship" aspect but in the letter itself it mentions Ann's raghead comment, so this should have come as no great shock. With Coulter you know what youre getting.

You mention policing ourselves and I agree there is a need, but I also think we tend to "eat our own" as an appeasement to liberals out of fear. We ran Trent out of town for fear of being labeled as racists just as we now blast Ann for fear of being called homophobes.

This is not a letter coming from strength but from weakness as her point of making a mockery of "hate crimes and words" as well as the hollywoodati flippant use of rehab as an excuse to avoid personal accountability holds true. She had a point but all people heard was faggot, because that is what the left has told us to hear.

This letter is a sad confirmation that we have kowtowed to the left and have allowed them to define the debate into nothing more than catchphrases. Yes, words do have meanings...but so do ideas.

...Im still your biggest fan and you did a great job at CPAC.

[JANE SAYS: I agree with the spirit of the letter. But I DO NOT THINK SHE SHOULD APOLOGIZE preCISELY because SHE IIIIS Ann. Coulter. What the hell did they think they were getting???

It is just that she is WORKING AGAINST THE CAUSE. She is funny and she makes money on her mouth, and GOD knows I love a mouthy hot Conservative, but THAT WAS SELFISH AND ALL ABOUT HER.

And if you read my post from CPAC about her, she ducked out on a HUUUUUUGE line of book buyers (@27.95 a POP--CPAC prices are NO Amazon!) who waited TWO HOURS for her. TWO HOURS. THAT was inexcusable. I went to return my book and they wouldn't give me a refund. But that is Capitalism---how could I be mad?

And Donkey----You are such a TRUE gentleman. I love you dear, and I know you still love me. You better. ;)]

[Voiceofreason]

My two cents:
For those who have taken the stance that Ann owes no apology, whine about what the extreme left says, and generally don't want to budge I offer the following thoughts.

(1) If Ann truly cares about the principles in her books and lectures that have made her a wealthy woman why WOULDN'T she want to apologize and regroup in her approach? If she can't then I think it is fair to see that her loyalty to the principles is secondary to the loyalty to her financial gain.
(2) If Ann truly wanted to see a conservative rebound in the house and senate why is it so hard for her to be a "team player"? In our everyday lives many of us (faceless readers and commenters) put principles before pride and certainly don't talk that way around our children. Not because it will make us rich or to boast about our good parenting but because we KNOW it is the RIGHT thing to do.
(3) Just because the extremists of the democratic party say terrible things it should not justify rolling in the mud with them. We seem to forget that most Democrats are not of this mindset and simply lean left of center in their political beliefs. This doesn't make them less patriotic than a proud Republican but their moderate outlook does mean they are willing to consider other viewpoints (Reagan Democrats, blue dog democrats).
I really believe that if the Republican party takes the high ground and strongly discourage the tactics and bombastic approach used by Coulter and some like her those Democrats I just described may take the initiative to take back their party from the minority of extremists. Our motives should be less about only being concerned about the potential vote but to encourage that thing all of us wax sentimental about; a time when civility was more the order of the day and the good of the country trumped a person's political loyalties.

So I ask everyone - Is it not better to take the high road? Is there any good reason not to?

[Donkeyhue]

VOR,

If it was a public servant we are talking about then I might be inclined to agree (I wouldnt but Id be inclined to)

Once again folks, we are talking about Ann Coulter; and honestly this may be one of the tamer things shes ever said.

By taking the "high ground" we allow the left to define the debate on their simplified terms. It is now about the word faggot -- and just the word faggot.

It is not about stooping to our opponents level its about standing up for and defending our conservative principles. One of which I hope is freedom of speech.

Is this what it has come to? We must condemn Coulter's use of the word faggot to make clear that ours is not a ideology of homophobia...well forgive me if I find that slightly suspect and guilt ridden.

If we condemn Coulter's use of the word faggot today; what then is next I ask you... a ban perhaps? and who gets to decide? because I personally never like the word porridge all that much.

This is dangerous ground people, tread carefully.

[JANE SAYS: I DON'T WANT TO TAKE THE HIGH GROUND. And in PRIVATE, I don't. But in a forum where there are MOSTLY YOUNG COLLEGE CONSERVATIVES, she is a ROCK STAR and if she chooses the LOW road IN THAT FORUM, then she takes us all down with her.

No high horse for Jane. Just pragmatic, private TIMING. xoxoxo,donkey ]

[Voiceofreason]

Donkeyhue:
I couldn't disagree more. We are not talking about quashing the freedom of speech. But getting bent out of shape because we expect our spokesman to be able to make a point and persuade others without inflammatory rhetoric is silly and counterproductive.
This is not about a particular word -- it is about making a conscious decision to walk the walk and talk the talk of responsible adults.
The overreaction of Ann's defenders is juvenile at best.
The thing to tread carefully about is turning off the majority of voters and staying a permanent minority in the representation of our country.

[Donkeyhue]

Yet quashing free speech is exactly what you are talking about. You are saying that faggot is a bad word and should not be uttered in public.

If this were not about the word in and of itself, then I ask you -- why the need to put faggot and raghead in quotations? Nowhere in the letter was her right to say such a word defended or the point she was trying to make elaborated on.

This was nothing more than as Sniper referenced above -- carbon offsets for the conscience. This was nothing more than admitting defeat in the Culture War that Buchanan spoke about in 1992. They have told us what words we can and can not use and apparently some of us have listened.

If CPAC feels that Ann Coulter no longer meets the criteria of the agenda (but yet Romney and Rudy do?) they are trying to put forth then by all means it is their right not invite her next year, just as it is her right to call John Edwards a faggot.

But dont get all high and mighty on me now and call me and others like me juvenille for defending her right to say whatever the f word (dont wanna get censored now) she wants while you "walk the walk and talk the talk as a responsible adult"

If you invite a flamethrower to a party dont act the fire warden AFTER the drapes catch ablaze.

If yours is the party that expects the likes of a Coulter to be your spokesman than by all means it deserves to be the minority, and if mine kowtows to liberal political correctness on electability grounds and the deriliction of the Constitution then mine does as well.

I pray that day does not come, but the realist in me is saddened by the realization that it already has.

[Voiceofreason]

And juvenile is how you are acting. Pat Buchanan didn't win the presidential nominations, why? Because the MAJORITY of voters didn't buy into his opinion of the world.
If you feel that using inflammatory terms instead of reasoned discourse is your only means of convincing people, then you won't convince very many. But you certainly are not in danger of losing your freedom of speech any time soon. The word is not the issue as much as you want to clench your fist and say it is -- it is the actions of supposedly responsible adults speaking for one party or the other that is the issue.

[Jonathan Moore]

Coulter’s speech was a huge distraction from issues addressed at the conference.

[Donkeyhue]

Pat Buchanan did not win the nomination for many reasons not the least of which we are currently discussing but as far as I can tell he never called anyone a faggot and yet here we are and he's still considered a homophobe for his positions.

Conservatives are not homophobes because Ann Coulter called John Edwards a faggot, but that is exactly how we are acting, and that is exactly how we will continue to be labeled so long as we give special creedence to all this hate speech hoopla. We might as just tell libs we have a gay friend and be done with it.

But what if she called him a nancy? a sissy? a girlie man? or a pretty boy?

Would the indignation be the same? Because the point would have remained the same, the insult would have remained the same, the joke, the slur, the "hate"... all would have remained the same. It just wouldnt have been the word that we are not allowed to say.

She was invited to an event. She did what she gets paid for. If people didnt like it, then they wont invite her next year. There was no need for anyone to apologize for her words. She told a tasteless joke and used a word that you wouldnt want said in your home at a dinner party (Oscar parties are ok)

The left wants to make her the face of our party and we are letting them. Ann Coulter does not legislate, she writes polemics. Throw the flag and move on.

I dont know how certain I would be about that free speech danger... as you can be damn sure nobody is saying faggot at CPAC next year.

As far as calling me juvenille is concerned, grow up. I would hope that my differing opinions do not frighten you so much as to force you to resort to name calling.

...and another thing

Im rubber
Youre glue.

[Jheka]

Really, where is the e-mail?

In any case, the letter is on my blog here:

http://www.dailyblitz.motime.com/post/646618

This is hardly the first (or second, or third) such stunt for Coulter, the Ted Rall of right wing pundits:

http://dailyblitz.motime.com/post/315324

[Timothy Burton]

Pitiful. The issue isn't what she said, you are just gutless and don't like to be attacked by the other side.

The fact is that the left says worse daily and yet we hear nothing.

Where was their outrage when:

"Little" Dick Durbin equated the troops with Nazis?
John "Christmas in Cambodia" Kerry was making a joke about being stupid and in Iraq?
Al Gore called Bush a traitor?
Bill Mahar hoped that if the suicide bomber in Afghanistan killed Cheney?
Hillary was making jokes about Indians (They obviously want to protect Indians, after all they attacked Allen for the Macaca comment)?
Howard "Yeaaaaaaawwwww" Dean said he hated Republicans?
Julia Roberts called Republicans reptiles?
Hillary making comments about the Republicans running the Congress like a "Plantation"?

They can have civility, when they start to give it. It is a shame that you don't see it as what it is, a war of ideas.

Before you start telling me this wasn't what the Founding Fathers intended, I suggest looking at the following events and tell me that we haven't improved:

-Jefferson/Adams election. Slander was the norm.
-Burr/Hamilton. One ended up dead over politics.
-New England's threat to secede. They didn't like Jefferson buying land from the French.
-Bleeding Kansas. Where that murderer John Brown got his start (and the North named a song after him).
-Brooks/Sumner event. This had a Congressman beating the crap out of another Congressman to the point of it taking years for the other to recover.

But, but I'm sure you will say, "That was then, this is now." Well, don't forget Johnson's Daisy commercial against Goldwater. They accused Goldwater of wanting to nuke the world.

You trying to take the high road is just bowing to the Left and kissing their feet.

[JANE SAYS:>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

I hope the "you" you are addressing is not ME. I SAID NOTHING OF THE "HIGH ROAD"and the letter does not call for an APOLOGY, just and admission by CPAC that perhaps she is not a FIT anymore for THAT FORUM of Conservatives...look in the other comments I left on this thread. I suppose I am going to have to add my own addendum on the main post---I UNDERSTAND that she used "faggot" as the reference to Grey's ANANTOMY-----I B L O G G E D T H A T V E R Y STory and asked the question TTTTTTTTTTTTHHHHHHHHHHHHHEEEEEEEEEEEEENNNNNNNNNNN....WHO "OWNS" the WORD FaGgOt ??// If you were a regular reader, you would know that. So for all the dropping in for the first time EEEVVVAH...and slinging arrows at me......MY HISTORY WITH THE WORD IS CLEAR.......read it. It is called SPEECH THERAPY , it was posted on the 26th of January when the story broke about the BLACK actor who said "faggot" . MY VIEWS ON SPEECH ARE QUITE CLEAR. They have not changed:

http://www.thekidalog.com/seejanemom/2007/01/the_other_other.html

ANN SHOULD JUST NOT USE CPAC as her own personal piggy bank, Her books are $27.95 and she SOLD PLENTY, then BOLTED ON A LINE OF YOUNGG FOLKS (the only ones who laughed at her snark) and left them holding UNSIGNED piles of pulp. (Which I love, by he way.)

WHO among us does not laugh when she hits them in the gut. I LAUGH PLENTY...I just would not do it IN THAT FORUM, SHARING THA STAGE WITH REAL PUBLIC SERVANTS who will have to answer for her.

THE CPCAC STAGE WAS NO PLACE FOR THIS FUNNY AND WELL INTENTIONED JOKE. Let her say it on Hannity. WHen It is all said and done, it is ANN who is laughing>>>>>>>>>>>>>>ALL THE WAY TO THE BANK. ]

[VoiceofReason]

Jane,
I think Jheka was referring to my hope that Republicans could take the high road not your post.

It is truly pointless to try to reason with people anymore -- they just want to hang onto their outrage like Gollum and his "precious" -- being angry is more important than effecting change. Didn't we learn that strategy had disastrous consequences for the Democrats for three election cycles after the impeachment?

Maybe by 2016 the angry young bloggers who enjoy slash and burn and eye for an eye responses will be ready to consider my point of view. But at least the sacred right to use derogatory or inflammatory terms will be intact thanks to these keepers of the torch of first amendment rights....

I'll be close to collecting Social security by then -- maybe a nine year hiatus from the blogs would be good for my blood pressure.

[JANE SAYS: My blood pressure could use a break too! You are new here! Enjoy your stay in The Realm. ]

[gary]

"Beauty, wit and intelligence?" Politics aside, speaking as a guy,Ann Coulter is not attractive. Personally I do not find her witty or intelligent either.

Now, I would do Michelle Malkin, but Ann Coulter--God no.

[JANE SAYS: She has gone a little boney for my taste, but then I'm a girl.]

[Rancher]

She's not bad looking Gary, I'd do her. JUST NOT ON A SPONSORED STAGE AT CPAC. I blogged on this but don't have trackbacks. Go to http://dunellanoestachato.blogspot.com/2007/03/ann-being-ann.html

[JANE SAYS: NIIiiiiiiicely done, Rancher.]

[jack]

If she would have said ... Barney Franks is a faggot I would totally understand ... and so would Barney Franks!