Conservative Bloggers Issue Letter Denouncing Ann Coulter
“Mother of Mercy, is this the end of Rico?”
–Edward G. Robinson in Little Caesar (1930).
Is this truly the time to ask: “Mother of Mercy, is this the end of Ann Coulter getting carte blanche to be viewed as a symbol of conservatism?”
It looks that way after a virtual firestorm of condemnation following her own supposedly botched joke — using the politically taboo (for anyone who wants to be taken seriously as a commentator or politico in America) “f” word to suggest that Edwards is gay. (Read our original post and long weblog opinion roundup HERE.)
Coulter is under fire from many quarters. And now credentialed conservative bloggers who attended the CPAC are issuing a statement on their sites declaring “the Age of Ann has passed” — and unequivocally denouncing her and urging that she not be invited back. It’s about as definitive a development in fine-tuning Coulter’s apparent real role in American politics — that of a verbal bomb-thrower who is invited due to her outrageousness and who often demeans the venues that have her speak as well as conservatism in general.
Here’s the letter as posted on Ed Morrissey’s site – it should be read in full:
An Open Letter To The ACU And CPAC Sponsors
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.
You can’t help but look at this and realize: Coulter hasn’t jumped the shark, she now seems to have jumped the whale. Yes, many of her talk-show allies who love her (and some websites and some blogs) will continue to highlight her specialty — insults perfectly packaged to be sound-bytes for talk-radio and cable shows.
But there ARE many thinking conservatives (just as there are many thinking liberals and thinking centrists) who view politics as part of a vital ongoing debate, an interplay of ideas, and an argument over the meaning of key facts. They don’t view it as uttering the equivalent of heckler or put-down-the-heckler lines used in comedy clubs — slightly fine-tuned to fit into a political context. And these thinking people seek to win over new allies and peel off voters from other groups, not alienate them.
Read Morrissey’s comments in full at the end of the letter. Here’s are two paragraphs:
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….…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.
It may be the end of Rico.
But it looks like the beginning of an admirable line in the sand.
40 Responses to “Conservative Bloggers Issue Letter Denouncing Ann Coulter”
“She draws attention to herself, rather than placing the spotlight on conservative ideas.”
Ann Coulter is the Madonna of Conservatism!
Madonna has gotten years of coverage from manipulating outrage from Catholics etc. over her use of Christian symbols onstage…her latest tour in Europe brought complaints that echoed those going back to the 80s.
Coulter is exactly the same. Liberals love her…my god, Edwards is now raising money based on her attack!
“Line in the sand”? I think not. If there is one lesson to be drawn from Madonna’s career…one can milk outrage for decades. Coulter is too valuable to liberals for them to let her diminish, and the media love shock value above all things.
As Elvis’ Colonel Tom Parker wisely observed – though the quote may not have originated with him: “Ain’t no such thing as bad publicity, boy, as long as they get your name right.”
[...] The Moderate Voice, Argghhh!, The Daily Dish , Instalawyer.com, Captain’s Quarters, Decision ‘08 [...]
I always thought it was beyond hilarious that Bill O’Reilly would have her on about once a month, while at the same time demonizing people like Michael Moore, George Soros and George Clooney as being far-left demagogues.
Ann Coulter has been nothing short of odious for years now. That it took this long for mainstream conservatives to denounce her is, well, ridiculous and really shows the sad state of American politics. The my team vs. your team mentality needs to end.
We’re all on the same team, team USA.
[...] The Age of Ann has Passed Joe Gandelman notes that several prominent conservative bloggers have issued a letter denouncing Ann Coulter “and unequivocally denouncing her and urging that she not be invited back.” They also noted that “the age of Ann has passed”. [...]
[...] Original post by Joe Gandelman and software by Elliott [...]
I have some issues with Ed Morrissey’s letter:
“She was telegenic, intelligent, and witty. She was also fearless…”
Agreed, she’s conservative eye-candy and there is nothing wrong with that. I have no questions about her intelligence or wit, but, what is with all this past-tense use of “was”? I doubt she’ll stop being any of these attributes, nor should she.
Here is were I have to disagree, “…saying provocative things to inspire deeper thought…”
Inspire deeper thought? Its like the British trait of insulting you and then asking you to agree. Lets see if these concerned conservatives remember that next time a liberal says something “provocative” to a conservative.
Chris, let’s see how much face time she gets in a few months.
What a creepy bunch of immature nutballs conservatives have become. Those in the audience who could hardly contain their delight that a leading spokesperson for conservatism would say ‘faggot’ are not extremists isolated on the far edge of respectable political discourse. These are some of the republican party’s most widely respected activists. Their thinking? Democrats are faggots and faggots are bad people of a lesser order than the rest of us.
Long may CPAC continue in its important work of showing this new conservatism in its true light- mean spirited, hateful, and un-American.
Maybe Apple Annie will go into rehab and renounce her evil ways. Maybe she can room with Brittnay.
We’ll probably have to wait for her next book to come out. Then all will be forgiven.
On a similar note, how the h*ll do they let Ben Ginsberg on political panels on TV? After his involvement with the Swift Boat group he should be relegated to nothing better than Limbaugh’s radio show.
Oops, it cut some of my comments off.
Chris, let’s see how much face time she gets in a few months. She may spend a few months out of the spot light, but as Ed said she’s telegenic, intelligent, witty, and fearless. I think she’ll be back again soon for those reasons at a minimum. Hopefully she’ll be a little less insulting but just as provocative as before.
Now, I’m not defending her at all and I personally can’t stand her. I also find Ed’s use of provocative do describe her statements (I assume her statements in the past) as bias.
Rambie,
I think she’s as much a bomb-thrower as many of the “Al-Qaeda types” she wants to protect us from with her “crusade.”
Her statements usually lack merit, and often she resorts to baseless ad hominem attacks. She shouldn’t be given serious time on TV for those reasons alone.
For those outraged by Coulter, Patterico has a great selection up of examples of Leftist Hate Speech.
Of course, when conservatives complain about these comments, the Left responds: “Typical wingnuts. Can’t take a joke or strong language.”
A nice examples…Alec Baldwin on Conan O’Brien complaining about attacks on Clinton:
“[I]f we were in other countries, we would all right now, all of us together, all of us together would go down to Washington and we would stone Henry Hyde to death! We would stone him to death! [crowd cheers] Wait! Shut up! Shut up! No shut up! I’m not finished. We would stone Henry Hyde to death and we would go to their homes and we’d kill their wives and their children. We would kill their families.”
Yah, stoning Republicans to death and killing their families.
The response of the Left: “It’s just a joke…what’s your problem?”
As for homophobia, Democrat Pete Stark on the floor of the House of Representatives, speaking to a Republican:
“You think you are big enough to make me, you little wimp? Come on. Come over here and make me, I dare you. You little fruitcake.”
Where, oh where, was the outrage from the Left about this?
Marlo,
Don’t be so predictable. I know it’s pretty much impossible to defend Ann Coulter, so it makes sense that the best you can do is divert…
If only the left could have displayed such support for civilized debate, and such opposition to empty-minded name-calling and bigotry, when dealing with Amanda Marcotte.
Pat,
That’s what I thought too until some nice folks here set me straight. See, what I was overlooking is that Marcotte isn’t as commercially successful as Coulter so she shouldn’t be held to the same standard…or something like that.
Who is Amanda Marcotte????
[...] More: Captain’s Quarters, The American Mind, Public Secrets, Gay Patriot, On Tap, The Moderate Voice, Say Anything, Outside the Beltway [...]
Chris said: “Marlo,Don’t be so predictable. I know it’s pretty much impossible to defend Ann Coulter, so it makes sense that the best you can do is divert…”
I don’t much care for Coulter, actually. As I noted above, I think she is a media whore much like Madonna. They both give the machine what it wants, and are well-rewarded for it.
But the point about double-standards is not diversionary. It is a legitimate point, I think, as I believe there is much faux outrage behind all of this.
Edwards is, after all, raising money as a result. Hmmm…he has obviously gotten more out of Coulter than he got from Marcotte…do you think?…naahhhhh….
I’ve often wonder about the judgement and taste of those who consider dear Coulter “telegenic,intelligent and witty”—might I subtitute mean-spirited, egotistical and nasty? I suppose the low-cut tight black cocktail dress might appeal to male college students who make up a lot of her fan base, but what other conservative Christian woman dresses that way for a book cover? What church does the little hoochie go to anyway?
Anyway, I also have a problem with the witty and intelligent part- is it witty or intelligent to joke about poisoning a supreme court judge? To say that we should invade all muslim countries and force their inhabitants to convert to Christianity? I fail to get why that’s at all witty or intelligent.
But this is the part that takes my breath away: claiming that she is “saying provocative things to inspire deeper thought…â€?,when what really results is numerous demands for conservatives to denounce Ann and all she stands for. Of course an inevitable side effect is megabucks in book sales for the auteur.
All, in all, as others have pointed out, I should be thanking dear Ann, as her “humorous” words just gave the Edwards campaign a shot in the arm, and the CPAC another black eye at a really inopportune time. So, thanks Ann!
Ahh… my mistake, C S… thanks for setting me straight, there. Stop by our place today, we’ve got something on the subject.
[...] So — what are the chances of the more rational bloggers, columnists, and pundits taking this issue to its logical next step and ousting the multitudes of red and blue Coulter-clones? [...]
The Right is disowning her for her comments.
The reaction here? “They don’t mean it, it won’t last, they should have done it sooner.”
Not even the slightest acknowledgment for doing the correct and appropriate thing. You know if there wasn’t an outpouring of condemnation from the Right, then there would have been outrage about that.
And please, provide some recent examples where the Left has denounced their own saying a crude slur, or inappropriate language, or attacking a whole class of people.
Actually, AR, I think Captain Ed’s letter, while a bit late, does express the appropriate sentiments. The true test will be to see if she’s listed as a headliner at next year’s CPAC.
For all her faults, she draws a lot of attention to the conservative movement, so it will be interesting to see if they are serious enough to ditch her. Attention=attendance=money for the movement.
This is hardly the worst thing she has said. This is par for the course for her, that’s what makes this different from Bill Maher or Alec Baldwin. They are generally reasonable people that go overboard now and then.
Ann Coulter is always overboard. She throws bombs all the time, it’s the media coverage that is forcing them to condemn her.
Chris is right, she is known for saying things that shock the mainstream, and usually cross the boundaries of civil speech. She does it for the same reason she dyes her hair blonde and wears tight, skimpy dresses- to draw attention to herself. Makes me wonder what kind of person she’s like on the inside- is it an act or is she really the new Queen of Mean?
In terms of political theory, Alec Baldwin is a doofus. Whatever he is as a political entity is artificially created by TV talk shows that will only let liberals on if they’re celebrities, with no premium on intelligence. How many books has he sold? He has no political following.
Good for the bloggers who signed this thing. While many of them are just doing what’s politically expedient, not condemning her when she said the same thing even more explicitly about Gore, or far worse things, some of them really do mean what they say. With enough of them together, it might even have an affect on the non-blogging fans.
By the way, the Freepers are solidly behind Ann Coulter and spewing vicious bigotry. That shows that a lot of these conservative bloggers are doing this because they have an audience, and are thus accountable. Make the same crowd anonymous commenters, and the hate keeps on coming.
Exactly right, carp, so what some of us conservatives are saying is, “where’s the accountability on the left?” because when leftwingers use hate speech it’s defended. We can all defend this stuff with a First Amendment argument and I don’t think anyone is saying that these people ought not be allowed to say these things. But what I’d like to hear is more people on BOTH sides of the political spectrum calling out people on their own side when lines of decency are crossed. The haters on the right may sell more books or gain more advertising dollars for their radio shows, but there are also more people on the right who are calling for an end to the venom. We seem to be more polarized on the issue, I guess, whereas on the left, it’s all just seen as par for the course (well, everyone crosses the line sometimes, I wouldn’t want every word on every blog to be picked over with a fine-toothed comb, etc etc.)
Chris, that’s simply because Alec Baldwin and Bill Maher say things you tend to agree with. Coulter lets forth some good thoughts on limited government, fiscal restraint, and other good positions in between her far-more-publicized verbal attacks and outrageousness.
The comments in this thread are again convincing me that the left has a terrible double standard about speech. Tolerate theirs, ostracize everybody else’s, because they’re wrong or evil or irrational.
Here’s a quick list of lefties I dont like for ya:
1) Hillary Clinton and 98% of the Democrats in Congress
Al Sharpton (7/8s of the time)
2) Michael Moore
3) Bill Maher (half of the time)
4) Al Franken (3/4s of the time)
5) Cindy Sheehan (half of the time)
6) George Clooney (1/4 of the time)
7) Jesse Jackson
I really can’t stand Frankel, Randy Rhodes and Jesse Jackson, myself. Maher is sometimes pretty funny, but sometimes just plain rude. Also can’t stand William Jefferson.
I always like Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert though.
For me, the issue isn’t so much AC as that she was ever invited to this politically important event, and that her comments appear to have been well received by the audience.
What are the invitation and reception about? Obviously things Coulter couldn’t have done on her own. And if she’s now on the outs, is it because of what she said or because now she’s spoiled goods politically? After all, what she said at this event was really pretty tame by her standards.
As a leftie myself, I’m no more impartial than anyone else in the which-side-is-nastier argument. That having been said, I think Patterico’s list (linked to by Austin Roth) actually makes Greenwald’s point. Compare that motley assortment to what you can find here on a fairly regular basis. Orcinus
Follow the links from Patterico’s rant and you’ll find how credible it is. The answer is, not much of it is.
CS shovels this:
The reality instead of what’s left after CS engages in that favorite hobby of the ideologue (That CS constantly tries to pretend she isn’t.) to distort what others say is that the point of comparison between Marcotte and Coulter isn’t what standards they should be held to but rather what they mean to their respective sides of the political debate.
I am only one of many who tend towards Marcotte’s side of the political spectrum who have never heard of her even if John Edward’s people had. What I saw of her posts when this big brouhaha started I didn’t like. But CS and her cohorts shovel statements about how the left didn’t make an outcry against her statements. Well, it’s hard to make an outcry against something you’d never read.
But Coulter sells millions of books to the faithful. She is invited as a commentator on Fox News, the only source of news that millions of conservatives trust. She is invited to events like CPAC to appeal to the politically active true believers.
That was the point of the comments that you purposefully misrepresented. But since Pat is just like you I have no doubt your “audience” appreciated it.
And likewise, Jim, I’m sure your “audience” appreciates your inaccurate characterization of my comments.
You emphasize the difference between Coulter’s celebrity and Marcotte’s relatively unknown status (prior to the coverage she got after the Edwards campaign hired her of course), and for this reason you feel there is a big difference in the standards to which each woman should be held. Which is exactly what I said that you guys were saying. Which is what you said I was purposefully misrepresenting. OK, thanks for setting me straight!
Here’s what I wrote:
Have you been taking lessons in lying from your hero, Ann? Or are you just incapable of reading?
No Jim, but I’m pointing out that your argument makes no sense. Why should the standards not matter? By that logic, I guess if a corporation is not very successful then we shouldn’t have to regulate it? Such companies should be allowed to operate sweat shops because they’re too insignificant to matter?
I assume you’re trying to raise a separate issue that you see more evidence of conservatives who accept or tolerate this kind of rhetoric. Of course I already addressed that point in comment #29:
I fail to see how this separate issue has anything to do with holding both sides accountable, and you haven’t addressed that at all. Why is it so hard to just say, “there are people on the left and the right who say outrageous things and it’s up to reasonable people from both sides of the spectrum to hold them accountable for it”?
I did say that I didn’t like what I’ve read of Marcotte. I do believe that she needs to rein in the insults as much as Coulter. But I also pointed out that one consequence of her relative lack of exposure is that it’s a bit hard to criticize someone you’ve never read. This is also part of who she is to the left versus what Coulter, Savage, Hannity and their ilk are to the right. Compare and contrast not simply their language but how many on their respective wings of the political spectrum take them seriously or even know about them. That is the point of looking at the books they sell or the TV shows they are on. It’s about how many read/see/hear them. The right has the numbers and based on comments versus the bloggers themselves many on the right still love the hatred.
But as I pointed out, Jim, I see plenty of evidence that a large segment of people on the right are speaking out against this type of rhetoric. So the point you are making about how prevalent the acceptance is, is neutralized when you weigh it against how strong the contingency is AGAINST this phenomena. The two things cancel each other out, but instead of recognizing that, a lot of people here have tried to portray it as though most right wingers are eagerly lapping up the hate speech.
CS,
Read the comments section of the bloggers who are speaking out against Coulter. Her supporters far outnumber the ones who agree with the bloggers. So yes, most right wingers are lapping it up. It’s only the upper echelons who are now beginning to realize what she and those like her are doing to the party because of how it turns off the independent voters. Let’s face it, Coulter isn’t going to lose any appearances on Fox. Town Hall won’t ever turn down anything she would consider letting them post. Her publishers aren’t going to drop her because conservatives will still buy up any screed she types. The odds are probably even that she’ll be back at CPAC next year. She did get massive applause after the slur, after all. Frankly, you’re just completely blind to the realities of where your party has gone since 1994.