As the fallout from Ann Coulter’s remark continues, American Mind wants signatories to a letter to CPAC requesting that they not book her for next year.

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.

Sean Hackbarth
The American Mind

While I posted this letter for information purposes, don’t count me in the hang Ann bunch.

Personally while I think she could of have done without the comment, yet the seemingly alarmist self-righteousness of some of my compadres this morning disquiets me more. Some of it borders on the nearly hysterical. It seems we - or some of us - have this same puritanical reaction every time something like this occurs, and it seems that everyone jumps on the meme-wagon simply to play “follow the leaders”.

Should the CPAC “ban Ann”, perhaps, but then again, they knew what they were getting when they booked her, let no one tell you any different. I speak at events and whenever I’m hired I’m grilled to what I’m going to talk about and even in some cases warned about what not to talk about. “Buyer beware” applies. Ann was no doubt hired because she brings in the masses and sells tickets.

You want to talk about what kind of “example” she should set or what damage her words does the “cause”, I frankly think nothing matters less. Truth is that much of the punditry of the Right works out of fear of what the Left will say in such a case. To borrow the over used phrase, “Frankly I don’t give a damn”. Particarly in this case where no one on the left can take the high moral ground as their side far exceeds the Right in the outrageous, slanderous, and stupid comment category. Considering their sins, they can never be the first to cast any stones.

Ann Coulter is no more a representation of the entirety of the Right than Kos is of the left. So-called “Super Stars”, perhaps, but nonetheless characters in the play called politics as usual.

Perhaps Ann should be allowed to explain her words herself - not that the crowd didn’t seem to get the bad joke judging from the laughter.

The fact is that the blogsphere on both the left and right have their “moral gatekeepers” and god forbid one crosses their marked line of decency. That is fine and I’m all for free speech and having such a position, but not all of us feel the same, nor do we answer to them.

When you look back over the short history of the blogsphere you have seen this reaction - which Rush Limbaugh once bluntly called “pandering”, meaning that bloggers with visions of MSM greatness seem all too willing to hold up the mantel of “Political Right” in order not to appear too “radical”. I don’t know, my motto, “To thine own self be true”.

Again, I’m not defending Ann. I said what I though about it Saturday and let it go. Others feel compelled to do otherwise and really pile it on, and more power to them. But maybe some should like - get over it and move on, there are much more greater things on the horizon.