The fact that Ann Coulter has been made into some sort of pariah does nothing but help the left. That is exactly what they want.

The more important issue is that her name calling is a distraction to people on the right who are trying to make appeals to voters against the damaging policies Obama and Hillary propose.

You make a good point. CPAC, like most corporations has their brand to manage, and Ann has hers. It probably works best for both if Ann can keep her rebel credentials by staying outside of the convention.

dedalus on February 9, 2008 at 11:32 AM

Thank you! I completely agree with you as well. However, even as she did stay away this year, the CPAC-ers, for lack of a more accurate term, still couldn’t resist the urge to be “shocked” and to leap to be first in line at nearest MSM portal to apologize for whatever she said or may have said.

You’re right CPAC has become just another PR-oriented corporation. I imagine it has it’s own speech code, multicultural sensitivity workshops where everyone who is not white is African-American (just to be on the safe side), transgender tolerance guidelines and a sexual harassment policy.

The question isn’t Coulter’s right to free speech it is whether it is helpful.

The fact that Ann Coulter has been made into some sort of pariah does nothing but help the left. That is exactly what they want. They use the same tactic with everything. They know damn well when she speaks she’s got them in her cross hairs. Their best chance of deflecting what she says is to label her “extremist” and ” offensive”. By agreeing with them all we do is help them … and hurt us.

I don’t care if the left is offended. I say we need to offend them as often as possible. We get nowhere playing on their terms.

It is sad that a little (but well-connected) clique of activists has managed to convince the sponsors of CPAC that Ann Coulter is bad for publicity. I guess these sponsors, like Romney, have become “too corporate, too focus-grouped…”.

You make a good point. CPAC, like most corporations has their brand to manage, and Ann has hers. It probably works best for both if Ann can keep her rebel credentials by staying outside of the convention.

I think everytime she has published a book it became a number one bestseller. Why. Here are the possible reasons:

1. Because we thrill her dustjacket image
2. Because we like giving her books to liberals as a joke
3. Becasue we NEED to apologize for something every year.
4. Becasue millions of us connect with her ideas and use her work to advance the cause of conservatism in our own little way.

It is sad that a little (but well-connected) clique of activists has managed to convince the sponsors of CPAC that Ann Coulter is bad for publicity. I guess these sponsors, like Romney, have become “too corporate, too focus-grouped…”.

Let’s see if I understand. a) You fear attacks on our chemical plants by AQ. b) Obama would protect them from AQ by retreating. No wait, he would “redeploy” the army away from Iraq back to the US to protect the chemical plants…

I don’t personally fear them, though I think more people could die than were killed on 9/11. Towers come down across a few acres of land. A disaster on a scale of Union Carbide’s in Bhopal would have a much wider area of devastation.

We probably spend something close to $1 trillion dollars a year between military and security measures. We don’t have to wait for Iraq to be resolved to begin on improving security around chemical plants.

Instead of chastising her we should all learn to speak our minds … once again.

Speak freely but also responsibly. People speak differently among old friends than with clients, or in church, or around their kids.

The question isn’t Coulter’s right to free speech it is whether it is helpful.

I hope we get to the security before AQ gets to the plants. I disagree with Obama on taxes, Iraq, and health care to name a few.

Let’s see if I understand. a) You fear attacks on our chemical plants by AQ. b) Obama would protect them from AQ by retreating. No wait, he would “redeploy” the army away from Iraq back to the US to protect the chemical plants…

This is getting way off topic…..

This is exactly what the other side has dreamed of, what they’ve worked so hard to achieve. Self censorship. If you haven’t noticed they don’t censor themselves. Just threaten to call us a silly name and we’ll shut up, or fall all over ourselves apologizing profusely, many times not knowing what the hell we’re apologizing for, while the other side laughs.

Instead of chastising her we should all learn to speak our minds … once again.

Who cares? The problem isn’t Coulter
darwin on February 9, 2008 at 10:37 AM

People who want to win elections seem to care. Coulter’s comments are better at moving product than building a governing majority.

The liberals won’t cut your throat because they want to take your tax dollars and confiscate your property. Keeping them out of the White House for the next 4 years is meaningful.

Many other conservative columnists speak out against liberalism. When Coulter uses “faggot”, “rag head”, or Obama’s race to make her point she isn’t telling people something about liberalism. Instead she injects herself into the story, which works out well for business.

dedalus

Who cares? The problem isn’t Coulter … it’s the ultra thin skin people have developed as a result of their fear of being called a silly name. Who gives a damn what the liberal, socialist, neocommunist democrats think … they’ll cut our throats in a heartbeat and not think twice. Good lord, some of these liberal democrats are the nastiest people around. Tell it like it is and if they pull out whatever victim card so what, that’s all they ever do.

We do…his name is Mitt Romney.
netherman79 on February 9, 2008 at 10:16 AM

I liked Mitt on the issues but some felt he was too mechanical, too corporate, too focus-grouped, and not authentic. Conservative talkers only came around to him late, and only after others dropped out and he was the “anybody but McCain” candidate.

I probably agree with Obama on a few issues. Securing domestic chemical plants is something he’s spoken about and I wish we had done over the past 6 years. It is pretty easy to kill a lot of people with an inexpensive attack on one of those facilities. I hope we get to the security before AQ gets to the plants. I disagree with Obama on taxes, Iraq, and health care to name a few.

Michael Moore? Alren Spector? Christie Whitman? I’m not sure any of them has Obama’s ability to look into a camera and speak persuasively. We had a guy who could do that–Ronald Reagan–it goes a long way.

If we had someone on the GOP side, white or black, who had Obama’s vitality and ability to combine conservative values with hope we wouldn’t have a 71-year-old compromise candidate.

I disagree with Obama’s policies almost completely, but the guy has got some pretty serious speaking skills. Mixed race or not, the GOP could use a guy like that.

dedalus on February 9, 2008 at 9:23 AM

We do…his name is Mitt Romney.

Almost? Almost completely?

Michael Moore has some pretty serious speaking skills, too. The GOP has a guy and some girls like that: Lincoln Chaffee, Michael Steele, Arlen Specter, Christine Whitman. What wonderful things they have done for party and country.

There will be no win for the GOP this November.
netherman79 on February 9, 2008 at 9:57 AM

Neither of us can predict the weather 2 weeks from now, much less an election in November where the opposition is unknown.

If the GOP loses in November–more likely against Obama than the charmless Hillary–the party will unravel and need to be rebuilt, but unless someone can figure out how to build it around a majority coaltion all the arguments will be theoretical about what we’d do if the Dems weren’t in power.

Ann Coulter is one of the few who are willing to speak out about liberalism in the republican party and the fact that she can drive home here point with humor and sarcasm makes it even more pointed.

Many other conservative columnists speak out against liberalism. When Coulter uses “faggot”, “rag head”, or Obama’s race to make her point she isn’t telling people something about liberalism. Instead she injects herself into the story, which works out well for business.

Getting to 270 is also important. If Coulter is a liability then ignoring her is the best thing. The Conservatives at CPAC didn’t invite her, maybe they think she doesn’t help them.

dedalus on February 9, 2008 at 9:12 AM

There will be no win for the GOP this November. If you accept that then you will see that what is important is getting rid of all the liberal and moderate Republican politicians at every level of government. The conservatives who continue to worry about what Nancy Pelosi and the New York Times, thinks about anything will continue to lose elections. The GOP will continue to fade away as a party with any distiguishing characteristics other than the chronic bleeding from the knees due to constant begging for forgiveness.

Whatever CPAC is or has become, it is no longer conservative. Maybe it’s name should be changed to ADPAC: the Anti-Democratic Political Action Conference. Then it, like the RNC, can take its place among the irrelevant, mutual admiration societies of Washington politics.

amerpundit on February 8, 2008 at 4:29 PM

When is a joke about John Edwards unnecessary? Especially when it’s true (chasing ambulances). Ann Coulter is one of the few who are willing to speak out about liberalism in the republican party and the fact that she can drive home here point with humor and sarcasm makes it even more pointed.

Pointing out the fact that he’s half black, and wouldn’t be in the position he’s in now if he wasn’t half black is not racist, it’s the truth.

Obama is also young, articulate, has the vision-thing (as GHWB would say) and believes in a liberal reversal of what conservatives have done.

If we had someone on the GOP side, white or black, who had Obama’s vitality and ability to combine conservative values with hope we wouldn’t have a 71-year-old compromise candidate.

I disagree with Obama’s policies almost completely, but the guy has got some pretty serious speaking skills. Mixed race or not, the GOP could use a guy like that.

And the comments about Barack Obama are racist to put it mildly.

olympian2008

Oh please … your chromosomes have mutated and added the political correctness gene. There is nothing “racist” in what Coulter said. Pointing out the fact that he’s half black, and wouldn’t be in the position he’s in now if he wasn’t half black is not racist, it’s the truth.

to look around, to see whether anyone, real or imagined, is looking.
netherman79 on February 9, 2008 at 8:35 AM

Getting to 270 is also important. If Coulter is a liability then ignoring her is the best thing. The Conservatives at CPAC didn’t invite her, maybe they think she doesn’t help them.

So let’s give them more fodder to destroy us. Instead of them having to hunt for something, let’s put it on their dinner plate.

I don’t care what Democrats think. I care what Democrats can use against us. I don’t give a damn what Nancy Pelosi thinks, but I care about material she can use to bring us down.

If Ann wants to speak bluntly about issues, that’s one thing. But an unnecessary, unfunny joke about Edwards isn’t talking about the issues. It’s a ploy to get attention to her latest venture.

amerpundit on February 8, 2008 at 4:29 PM

Dude, the Democrats are NOT the problem. It’s the Liberals. The Liberals are the enemy and you’ll find them in every party.

The last graph is the killer, tho. Now the conservative movement should decide what are necessary and funny jokes? Can a joke be unnecessary and funny? is that ok? Or vice versa? Maybe you should write a manual…let’s call it a manifesto … for anyone who considers themselves a conservative and wants to address the “movement.” You can update twice a year (four times a year during an election) with new standards for what is necessary and funny or what should not be said for fear what “the Democrats will use to destroy us.”

The simple word “macaca” destroyed George Allen. Whether the reality is fair or not, the fact is her stupidity gives the Democrats even more fodder to attack us.

No. It is our stupidity that allows the Democrats and liberals and moderates of every stripe that makes us vulnerable to their attacks. You betray your insecurity when someone points a finger at you and your instinctive reaction is to look around, to see whether anyone, real or imagined, is looking. You dither then while you desperately try to look wounded, gasp for the clever deflecting phrase like “Ann is stupid,” then, when it dawns slowly on you that no one cares, you turn to melodrama, put on some weird peformance art, writhing in feigned agony over what you think THEY think about Ann Coulter.

The attention whores are those in the “conservative movement” who flinch and who seek to mollify some uncaring thirdy party by apologizing for what she has said. You imagine an audience, then play to it.

To whom are you apologizing? You tell me, x-pundit. Let me give you a list of options:

1. To the New York Times editorial page…so that Frank Rich and Maureen Dowd will write nice things about the “conservative movement”
2. To the sensitivities of the “squishes” in the GOP.
3. To the remaining viewers of MSNBC so that KO won’t say nasty things about us.

How many times do we have to say it? Hmmm? One mo’ time:
It.
Doesn’t.
Matter.