GayPatriot Joins Open Letter to CPAC
Dan and I wholeheartedly endorse the following letter:
************
An Open Letter to CPAC Sponsors and Organizers Regarding Ann CoulterConservatism 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.
************
38 Comments
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
And will you also be writing an open letter to the NAACP for giving Isaiah Washington a so-called “Image” award?
Just a thought …
Julie the Jarhead
Comment by Julie the Jarhead — March 5, 2007 @ 11:59 am - March 5, 2007
Well, she did it. Ann Coulter has apologized.
Yep – Ann has apologized to the gay community for comparing them to John Edwards.
I feel so much better now.
Regards,
Peter H.
Comment by Peter Hughes — March 5, 2007 @ 12:02 pm - March 5, 2007
I hate to tell you guys, but I disagree.
Ann was making two statements here … for one … she was ripping on Edwards, that’s a given.
The point you missed is the fact that we have turned into a society that sends people to “rehabilitation” for uttering offensive words. That shouldn’t be what America is about, and it shouldn’t be what conservatism is about. We should have the right to call people whatever the hell we want, without fear of being sent away for “rehabilitation.”
Was it harsh? yes. Was it a slur? Definitely. Should she be “thrown under the bus” I don’t think so. Ann says and does things that others are afraid to, and we need women like her who aren’t afraid to throw bombs.
What if she made a similar comment and said she would make a comment about Clinton, but she was worried about being sent to rehab for calling someone a “breeder?” Would it make sense?. No. Nobody gets sent to rehab for calling someone a “breeder” … And that’s her point.
Comment by DJFelix — March 5, 2007 @ 12:16 pm - March 5, 2007
Why condemn Ann Coulter for her remarks, she is the soul of your movement, she is what you are, you should embrace her and internalize that hate for all it’s worth because really that self hate gives some kind of meaning to your being, so please gay conservatives keep the self deceit and the hate rolling, as long as your happy that’s all I care about.
Comment by Steve — March 5, 2007 @ 12:22 pm - March 5, 2007
[...] Original post by GayPatriot [...]
Pingback by Politics: 2008 HQ » Blog Archive » GayPatriot Joins Open Letter to CPAC — March 5, 2007 @ 12:38 pm - March 5, 2007
Following up on #3, my main objection to Ann’s remark is that it didn’t seem particularly applicable to Edwards (limousine liberal, yes; girl-man metrosexual, no). Other than that, I thought it was a funny and entirely fair riff on GLAAD’s re-education of TV actor Isaiah Washington.
Comment by Throbert McGee — March 5, 2007 @ 12:44 pm - March 5, 2007
[...] More: Captain’s Quarters, The American Mind, Public Secrets, Gay Patriot, On Tap, The Moderate Voice, Say Anything, Outside the Beltway [...]
Pingback by Save The GOP — March 5, 2007 @ 1:13 pm - March 5, 2007
Steve, substitute the name “Cindy Sheehan” for “Ann Coulter” in your post and read it again. Then you will see how foolish your remark is.
Regards,
Peter H.
Comment by Peter Hughes — March 5, 2007 @ 2:06 pm - March 5, 2007
You say: 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.
Well I say:
Yes, Ann says and does things that others are afraid to, and we DO need men and women like her who aren’t afraid to throw bombs.
That’s the BIG problem with our party, we are afraid to fight back. We always want to take the “high road” and we always get it in the rear end for it. Don’t you think that it’s time that we do fight back. She does not represent the entire conservative party she is NOT a spokes person for us. So we don’t have to apologize for her either.
Comment by Cisco — March 5, 2007 @ 2:26 pm - March 5, 2007
DJFelix, I think you missed the point. Switch the N word for the F word, and she would have been pasted in 2 seconds after she said it, and everybody would see how offensive it would be. I understood the context of what she said, which basically was that people shouldn’t be offended by the f word. If you are not, good for you. I found it very offensive (as well as her other rhetoric as well), although I won’t lose sleep over it. You didn’t find it offensive, that’s okay too. But I think GP’s other point is well taken. Her stupidity may hurt Republicans and conservatives, and they felt that with her record of saying offensive things, if it continued, it could impact their campaigns negatively. Maybe this will set an example for when the next time a Democrat does something stupid, that those actions will be condemned by other Democrats as well.
Comment by Pat — March 5, 2007 @ 2:34 pm - March 5, 2007
[Comment deleted due to violation of community terms of conduct.]
Comment by Chet — March 5, 2007 @ 2:41 pm - March 5, 2007
“Maybe this will set an example for when the next time a Democrat does something stupid, that those actions will be condemned by other Democrats as well.”
Pat, I applaud your optimism. But it AIN’T GONNA HAPPEN.
The MSM and others continually hold conservatives to a different set of standards than that of liberals. Otherwise, Bill Maher’s comments would not have languished after one news cycle.
And let’s not forget that arbiter of sanity and calmness, Howard Dean:
“DNC Chairman, Howard Dean immediately released this statement: ‘There is no place in political discourse for this kind of hate-filled and bigoted comments.’ ” (March 4, 2007)
“I hate Republicans and everything they stand for.” Howard Dean (2006)
Pat, trust me – it won’t happen.
Regards,
Peter H.
Comment by Peter Hughes — March 5, 2007 @ 3:06 pm - March 5, 2007
[...] Ann Coulter Stirs Up GOP 5 03 2007 And they eat their own… [...]
Pingback by Ann Coulter Stirs Up GOP « Blowhard — March 5, 2007 @ 3:10 pm - March 5, 2007
Steve, it’s really pathetic that you would try to delude yourself and others into believing that conservatives who would rebuke Ann Coulter are insincere. Many liberals who would rather not actually discuss issues intelligently will try to paint all conservatives as being of the same mind and temperment as the most extreme or offensive right-wingers. (To be sure, many conservatives would similarly try to paint all liberals as being the same as the most extreme and offensive people on the left; I’m not out to defend them either.) People of sound heart and sound mind understand that our society is not better off when we assume that all people we disagree with believe the same thing and are unreasonable. It’s fair to criticize conservatives who defend Ann Coulter (and especially those who cheer the offensive things she says), but when you second guess the sincerity of conservatives who lambast Ann Coulter without offering evidence of that insincerity, you make youself sound stupid. I’m a conservative, but I very often disagree with Ann Coulter, Michael Savage, Jerry Falwell, Pat Buchanan, Pat Robertson, etc. They don’t represent me. You may be a liberal, but I won’t assume that every person generally identified as a liberal represents you.
Comment by cme — March 5, 2007 @ 3:31 pm - March 5, 2007
Did you guys also protest when, in July 2006, Coulter called Al Gore a “total fag” on Chris Matthews’ Hardball?
–Chet
Comment by Chet — March 5, 2007 @ 4:43 pm - March 5, 2007
Must-read: Patterico catalogs undeniable, reprehensible hate speech by major public leftists: http://patterico.com/2007/03/05/5901/leftist-hate-speech/
He deliberately did NOT even bother to include all the conservatives = Nazis, racists, fascists, blah blah blather that is out there.
Comment by Calarato — March 5, 2007 @ 5:15 pm - March 5, 2007
Congratulations, Bruce and Dan, for the stand you’re taking on Ann Coulter. She’s become an embarrassment.
It’s a shame liberals can’t or won’t acknowledge that it’s wrong for leftists like Bill Maher to cross the line.
Comment by Ashley Hunter — March 5, 2007 @ 5:34 pm - March 5, 2007
I suspect that Edwards (Breck girl) doesn’t have much to worry about here (raising Coulter Cash) but he could find himself in trouble if someone in the MSM decides to focus in on his campaing blogger that he
firedre-hired a couple of weeks ago when her rabidly anti-Catholic blog rants were uncovered.http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MjYzN2FiZjFmOGIwZDcyZDQ1NzM1MDU5OGM2MzljZTE=
Comment by Robert — March 5, 2007 @ 5:34 pm - March 5, 2007
Ann Coulter shoots from the lip and often misses her target.
For penance, she should be forced to date Bill Maher for 6 months.
On double dates with Al Frankin.
Comment by Vera Charles — March 5, 2007 @ 8:27 pm - March 5, 2007
Actually, Vera, I remember reading somewhere that Ann Coulter and Bill Maher are actually good friends. I know Bill Maher has expressed admiration for Ann, respecting Ann’s willingness to say whatever is on her mind. Ironically, Bill Maher probably likes Ann Coulter more than most conservatives do. (Of course, Bill Maher’s opinion of Ann could have changed for the worse since I read that. I know mine has.)
Comment by cme — March 5, 2007 @ 9:43 pm - March 5, 2007
Pat -> I believe you have built a straw man. We are not talking about the N word, we are talking about Ann Coulter, comparing Edwards to a piece of wood. (look it up)
Ann was on Fox just a few days ago disparaging about being sent for “rehabilitation” for uttering an offensive word. She brought it up again, without that context, and people winced.
I completely respect people’s right to be offended. I even respect the bloggers here for speaking up against such offense. I just have a difference of opinion.
Just like The Governator said at the 2004 Republican convention. One of the great things about being Republican is that we can have differences of opinion, and still be good Republicans. I still think Bruce is a good Republican, even though I disagree with him.
Maybe I need rehab … nah!
Comment by DJFelix — March 5, 2007 @ 11:17 pm - March 5, 2007
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.
+++++++++++++
since being muslim is not a race, then comments about islam and muslims are not racist remarks. the muslims desire that such remarks be racist, but they are not.
#3, DJ Felix stated the point well…………America is way to PC with no one’s feelings are to be hurt because of words…….how utterly stupid………….
the leftist liverals have forgotten the old rhyme from our hcildhoods.
“sticks & stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me…………..”
or in the modern version:
“sticks and stones may break my bones but whips and chains excite me……….” any rhyme can be changed to represent something totally different.
PCness will kill America as surely as the cult of islam…..
The Texican.
Comment by The Texican. — March 6, 2007 @ 12:13 am - March 6, 2007
You miss the real point, which isn’t her comment as much as it is the wild enthusiasm and laughter she received for it. Conservatives. Do. Not. Like. Gay. People.
It really is that simple. And they are your people. Do something about them.
Comment by jimmy — March 6, 2007 @ 2:17 am - March 6, 2007
Yeah, about this letter: http://www.pamshouseblend.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=933.
Do you people really have a problem with her saying “faggot,” or do you just have a problem with her saying it in public, at a conservative event with all the stars lined up, since it will distract from your pristine and ideological version of conservatism, divorced, of course, from the real carriers and organizers of conservatism in America today–the PEOPLE THAT LAUGHED AT THE “FAGGOT” COMMENT?
One really wonders. And the wondering stops when you go and attack liberals in response to this. But, hey, at least you place the words “hate speech” close to the Ann Coulter posts (even if you don’t have the cojones to match them up exactly and have to project them on to lame internet searches).
Comment by jimmy — March 6, 2007 @ 2:33 am - March 6, 2007
We keep matters in perspective, jimmy.
What we know is that it’s not what Coulter said that bothered you or Pam; it’s the fact
that Coulter is not a Democrat.
You see, this past year, when Louis Farrakhan called gays “filthy” and disgusting, he was applauded overwhelmingly by blacks and Democrats in his audience, and Democrat legislators lined up in support of him — and you and Pam had nothing to say about it.
One would think that you might want to confront that if homophobia bothered you.
But then again, one also remembers that Farrakhan was speaking in Chicago, in front of the Reverend Jesse and Jesse Junior, and within earshot of Barack Obama.
Somehow, I don’t see the matter of homophobia and hate speech against gays being enough to move you from servitude to those.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — March 6, 2007 @ 2:48 am - March 6, 2007
#23
Conservatives. Do. Not. Like. Gay. People.
Show of hands:
How many here live in mortal fear of whether or not they are liked? Anyone? Anyone? OK.
Now how many here vote for a candidate based on whether or not they like you? Anyone? Anyone?
By the GayLeftBorg definition that if you oppose gay marriage, you’re homophobic, it stands to reason that none of the liberal candidates, lately, like gays. Ergo, one should concluded that the gay liberals wouldn’t be gleefully kissing the arse of any of the liberal candidates.
And yet what have we seen? Unconditonal support of and dumping millions of dollars to homophobic liberals.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — March 6, 2007 @ 6:17 am - March 6, 2007
#25 and 26. The audience laughed and cheered….at your expense. Deal with it. And don’t make yourself into a laughing stock on the liberal and left, too, with your projections and displacements. Deal with the ugly reality that the base of your (anti-gay) movement does. not. like. you. or want. you. in their. party or movement.
Watch the video again. They laugh at and cheer for her. She isn’t sorry and neither are they. This was the ACU and CPAC. Presidential candidates shared the same stage. This is your party. This is your movement. Try doing something about that–and stop reaching for whatever else you can fill your hands with in order to avoid dealing with your movement.
Comment by jimmy — March 6, 2007 @ 2:33 pm - March 6, 2007
jimmy-of-the-lower-case writes: “The audience laughed and cheered”
BZZZZZZZZZZTTT. Listen again, since you weren’t there; it’s an uncomfortable, ill-at-ease laugh on that line… the other one-liners get great laughs and even the lame ones get a chuckle.
Nice try, jimmy… time to board the short yellow bus.
Comment by Michigan-Matt — March 6, 2007 @ 7:12 pm - March 6, 2007
And don’t make yourself into a laughing stock on the liberal and left, too, with your projections and displacements.
Awww, poor jimmy just doesn’t want to admit that Farrakhan called gays “filthy” — and that Democrat legislators and people clapped and cheered uproariously when he did it.
Because then he’d have to admit that the only reason he and the other leftists are whining about this is because Coulter isn’t a Democrat. When people like Farrakhan and others call gays “faggots” and talk about how disgusting they are, to overwhelming applause, he just doesn’t care.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — March 6, 2007 @ 8:13 pm - March 6, 2007
And jimmy, so what if people laughed at the “faggot” remark. We laugh at you and all the other libtrolls all the time. What’s the difference?
Regards,
Peter H.
Comment by Peter Hughes — March 7, 2007 @ 10:54 am - March 7, 2007
Of course the rumor out here on the left coast is that Bill Maher and Ann Coulter have dated.
Now as for Ann’s comments, she is free to say what she wants but the fact that she is also willing to speak to Log Cabin Republicans for a $60,000, well that is hypocritical and it makes her sound like some type a high priced call girl.
Comment by Kevin Norte — March 8, 2007 @ 12:42 am - March 8, 2007
Ann Coulter didn’t call Edwards a faggot. She said that had she called him a faggot , the chorus would come out from the heavens to send her to political reeducation rehab. (Was she wrong?)
She conflated two points in one comment.
The points:
- Political Correctness in this country has gotton so bad that people go into “rehab” for using impolite labels
- John Edwards is a sissy wussy trial lawyer
So to reflexively say she was wrong for pronouncing the word faggot without any consideration for what she was trying to express only proves her point about rehab.
It’s obvious Edwards isn’t gay…. Coulter said she knows he isn’t. She has said she wasnt using the homosexual slur connation.. only a by-design school yard name-calling him as a sissy.
And I agree with her. He is a sissy. He is a faggot.
I’m gay. But I’m able to see behind rhetorical tactics and grasp what someone was trying to say
Comment by Vince P — March 8, 2007 @ 1:31 am - March 8, 2007
She is a high priced call girl. Although a very unattractive one that only some old fart conservative like dick cheney would beat off to. Ironic, she is what – late thirties, early forties, never married, and loves those slutty mini-skirts and tight,low neckline tops? How’s that for family values? Yet she and her ilk are the first to go off on how immoral liberals are and anti-family, blah, blah..
The point is this: If you are queer and want to be a republican, have at it but know that you aren’t going to get very far. From the late 1960′s until today, all of the advances in gay rights and civil rights have been made due to the efforts of liberal democrats-not conservatives. That is an undeniable fact. I’m not arguing – I’m just saying it like it is. If you want to say that war and limited govt is more important to you than civil rights, then clearly you don’t value yourself as a human being and maybe re-evaluate that.
Comment by kim — March 8, 2007 @ 2:54 am - March 8, 2007
#33 – Again typical lib hatred towards someone based upon outward appearances. For them, Linda Tripp was too fat, Katherine Harris wore too much makeup and Ann Coulter is a slut.
When will you people grow up? Sigh.
Regards,
Peter H.
Comment by Peter Hughes — March 8, 2007 @ 3:19 pm - March 8, 2007
Peter,
In Ann Coulter’s case, her inside is more ugly than her outside.
I detected a hint of snottiness in the tone of your post.
The continuing vitriol against ‘The Evil Left’ pretty much says it all about the hypocrisy on the posters on this blog. Perfect allright for people here to viciously attack liberals and leftists, yet get all outraged over the criticism of conservatives and righties.
Do you know what respect is Paul? You might try that out some time. It does actually work.
Comment by Elais — March 9, 2007 @ 10:59 pm - March 9, 2007
Elais: Please explain how someone of your sensibilities can on the one hand bemoan rude comentary and yet on the other hand say things like this:
“The conservatives/Republicans are doing their utmost to slaughter our men and women overseas and guaranteeing more innocent will die.
Bush is a war-monger.”
Comment by Vince P — March 9, 2007 @ 11:15 pm - March 9, 2007
It is so often the snob who accuses others of snobbishness. And Elias’ recent post (“In Ann Coulter’s case, her inside is more ugly than her outside.”) confirms what I postulated about liberals and their own hypocrisy.
So…between Vince and myself (thanks, dude), it is safe to say that you have been checkmated. Thank you for playing. We have lovely parting gifts for you backstage.
Regards,
Peter H.
Comment by Peter Hughes — March 13, 2007 @ 10:37 am - March 13, 2007
Contrary to what her detractors would have you believe, Coulter is not stupid. She’s very sharp & she knew exactly what she was doing. She knew how the media would react. Thing is, she’s got a book to sell. Thanks to these comments, she just enjoyed a free week of publicity.
There is a reason why National Review fired her.
No one has the right to censor Coulter for her latest comments. But they were incredibly crass. Totally her perogative to join the ranks of reckless bombthrowers like Michael Savage if it helps her sell books. Just don’t expect me to carry her water.
Comment by Steve-O — March 17, 2007 @ 11:16 pm - March 17, 2007