CPAC is Shocked--Shocked!--by Ann Coulter's Remarks

Conservatives attending this year's CPAC had no idea what was in store for them when Ann Coulter got up to speak. "I was going to have a few comments on the other Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards, but it turns out you have to go into rehab if you use the word 'faggot,'" she told the unsuspecting attendees, who were so taken aback by her surprising remarks that some of them exclaimed "Oh!" before they wildly cheered and applauded. Of course, they were just being polite and their response in no way implied that they weren't outraged by her comments. As hundreds of mostly young, college-age fans lined up to buy her books and get them signed, no doubt many of them were troubled by what she said, wondering if this would give people the wrong idea about conservatives.

Who knew that Coulter would say something that would give liberals an excuse to attack conservatives? Conservatives were just as shocked and appalled by her comments as they were last year at CPAC when she called Muslims "ragheads," recommended poisoning Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens and responded to a question about her biggest ethical dilemma by lamenting, "One time I had a shot at Clinton. I thought, 'Ann, that's not going to help your career.'" Many distanced themselves from what she said, just as they did at CPAC 2005 when she proposed a "New McCarthyism," explaining that the entire Harvard faculty should be fired for being traitors and that liberal books should be burned. When she speaks at CPAC next year, I wonder what outrageous things she will say, which conservatives will immediately denounce as in no way representing mainstream conservative thought. Certainly, she will give us something to talk about -- and condemn -- as she does every year. As CPAC Director Stacie Rumenap said last year, "For years, Ann's participation in CPAC has been the highlight for thousands of conservative grassroots activists. Her incendiary opinions on issues of the day resonate with our attendees, who always report that the CPAC experience would not be the same without an opportunity to be enlightened by the inimitable Miss Coulter."

Immediately, many shocked conservatives condemned her remarks, surprised that she would say something so intemperate when she is usually so funny. Blue Crab Boulevard is afraid it will cause a "backlash." Dean Barnett said her remarks were "Idiotic. Disgusting. Stupid. Moronic." Jules Crittenden called it "More bomb-throwing from someone who is all schtick." Dan Riehl accused her of "hijacking" the event. Even Red State said she should be "shunned." Next year when Coulter crosses the line again, you can be sure that conservatives will be ready to denounce her. Flopping Aces, who did such a bang-up job proving that Jamil Hussein doesn't exist, or does exist, I'm not sure which, was one of the few conservatives who defended her. Apparently, he didn't get the memo.

Some worry that Coulter's remarks will even affect the presidential race. John Hawkins at Right Wing News said that Coulter "deliberately put the presidential contenders and the other people attending CPAC in a bad light." Unfortunately the person who will suffer the most from what Coulter did is probably Presidential candidate Mitt Romney. "Unfairly, ex-MA Gov. Mitt Romney faces the biggest burden: he spoke right before Coulter and praised her… not knowing what she planned to say," Hotline said. How could he possibly have known Coulter would call John Edwards a faggot since the only thing she had said before even remotely like it was to call Al Gore a "total fag"? All Spin Zone goes so far as to say Coulter may have "torpedoed" Romney's presidential aspirations.

Michelle Malkin, who is particularly vigilant against incivility in public discourse, also weighed in. "A smattering of laughter," Michelle Malkin said, describing the reaction. "Not from this corner. Crickets chirping." On the tape of Coulter's remarks (available here in full), it's a bit difficult to hear the crickets chirping over all the laughter and cheering, but it's possible the microphones just weren't sensitive enough to pick them up. Last year Malkin also criticized Coulter's use of the word "ragheads." "'Ragheads' is not the word that immediately comes to my mind," she said. "Evildoers. Bloody murderers. Bastards. Yes. "Ragheads?" No."

For Malkin, any unfortunate remark a conservative makes is not reflective at all of conservatism, it merely reflects how hateful liberals are compared with conservatives. After Coulter made her comments about ragheads, she wrote. "The Left side of the blogosphere is working itself up into a lather, calling on conservatives to condemn Ann's remarks. But as I have noted many times, the Right is far more self-critical than the sanctimonious liberals who never say a peep about the routine hatred and poisonous ethnic/racial/religious identity politics exhibited by their own. We don't need your prodding." When Malkin gets hate email it is representative of the dark heart of liberalism, but when Coulter speaks in front of a group of conservatives that several presidential candidates have addressed, she is only speaking for herself. So every time that Coulter or others like her say things that conservatives would never say in public, it gives conservatives another opportunity to show how much better we are than liberals. As conservatives, we can all look forward to what outrageous thing Coulter will say at the next CPAC because it will give us a chance to show that we are not nearly as bad as she is and to accuse liberals of being insufferable hypocrites.

But unlike Malkin and most conservatives, Ed Morrissey at Captain's Quarters believes that Coulter's remarks and the cheering that followed were actually revealing of something more disturbing and not just an isolated incident by some bad apples, the way Abu Ghraib was. "At some point, Republicans will need to get over their issues with homosexuality," he said, which was almost as shocking as Coulter's statement. "Regardless of whether one believes it to be a choice or a hardwired response, it has little impact on anyone but the gay or lesbian person. We can argue that homosexuality doesn't require legal protection, but not when we have our front-line activists referring to them as "faggots" or worse. That indicates a disturbing level of animosity rather than a true desire to allow people the same rights and protections regardless of their lifestyles."

Of course, every conservative is aghast when Ann Coulter's jokes go wrong. To think they represent anything more than that is really going overboard. It was just a joke, after all, a joke gone horribly wrong perhaps, but not a career-killing joke like the one John Kerry made. Television bookings will probably slow for a while, but I'm sure they will pick up again once this little tempest has died down. Soon we'll be laughing at Coulter's delightful witticisms again--until the next time she says something reprehensible. In fact, just to be prepared ahead of time I'm going to write my piece condemning Coulter's remarks at 2008's CPAC right now so that I can post it as quickly as possible when it happens again next year.

Share This Post


Jon Swift, Ann Coulter, CPAC, John Edwards, Michelle Malkin, Liberal, Conservative, Media, Politics