There were a lot of stories to be told at the 33rd annual Conservative Political Action Conference in Washington, D.C., this week. Conservatives from all over the country gathered to discuss immigration both legal and illegal, the economy, the size and scope of government, national defense and homeland security, all the favorite conservative issues. There were big ideas, big subjects, big questions of policy and basic political philosophy.
Which is why it’s such a crying shame that the big story turned out to be a few intemperate words tossed off carelessly by a speaker more interested in making a buck than inspiring her audience.
On Friday, controversial conservative columnist and author Ann Coulter — on her way to a well-attended book signing on the show floor — addressed the assembled attendees at CPAC 2006 with a speech that blogger Sean Hackbarth called bad stand-up comedy with a conservative schtick. Sean was being too generous. In fact, Coulter sailed right past the bounds of good taste, past her usual tactlessness, past the furthest extent of what could be considered socially acceptable discourse.
During her prepared remarks, on the subject of Iran, Coulter said, “Maybe they do [have nuclear weapons], maybe they don’t, but they’re certainly acting like they do. … If you don’t want to get shot by the police, don’t point a gun at them. Or as I think our motto should be, post 9/11,” Coulter said, “‘Raghead talks tough, raghead faces consequences.'”
Six words. That’s all it took. That’s all it took to derail the entire conference. That’s all it took to confirm every negative stereotype about conservatives. We’re no longer smart, driven, sincere people who are trying to raise the level of public debate and shape the future of our country for the better. Now we’re all just a bunch of bigots. Now that’s the story.
Thanks a lot, Ann.
A prominent conservative blogger who’s covering the conference with me describes Ann Coulter as a “gateway conservative.” Because she’s so controversial, Ann Coulter attracts the attention of people who wouldn’t ordinarily find themselves drawn to conservative political thought. They start out reading her, then they get exposed to columnists like Charles Krauthammer and Michael Barone and George Will, and they “mature a little in their political philosophy.”
I think that’s a valid point. I think that there’s something to be said for appealing to people who respond to vitriol and bile and righteous anger in order to get them thinking about more nuanced issues. But there are two major problems with that approach, and because of them I think figures like Ann Coulter end up doing more harm than good.
Every time Ann Coulter gets up and calls Iranians — or Iraqis, or Jordanians, or Saudis or Pakistanis or Yemenis or Afghans or Sudanese or whomever because really, aren’t they all pretty much the same anyway? — “ragheads,” she gets the attention of people who think she’s right on. She gets thunderous applause from the members of her audience who share her anger at and disgust with the Muslim fundamentalists who are presently waging their diffuse little war against civilization.
But she also attracts the attention of people from both the left and the right who think that there are better ways of expressing anger than flinging outrageous and condescending ethnic slurs around. And at that moment, she’s not just Ann Coulter. She’s an icon of the entire conservative movement. She is the conservative movement. When she says “raghead” live on C-SPAN in front of a sign that says “Conservative Political Action Conference,” she’s speaking for all of us.
And a whole lot of us wish she’d just shut up.
The other problem is even worse, if considerably less obvious. Yes, conservatism is the big tent. Yes, ours is the political philosophy of pluralism and tolerance. Yes, we advocate a marketplace of ideas, where any reasonable position deserves to be heard and included.
But seriously, do we really want to include people who think that the best way to address geopolitical tensions is to throw the word “raghead” around? Are these the people we really want to invite to our party?
There are those out there who think that controversial speech should be controlled by the government. There are those who think that saying things like what Ann Coulter said — or publishing editorial cartoons deemed by some to be sacriligious — should be against the law. These people clearly have the wrong idea. But just because Ann Coulter should be allowed, by law, to say whatever she wants to whichever audience chooses to invite her, so also should she be held responsible for saying things that do more harm than good. And calling people “ragheads” to resounding applause certainly does more harm than good. Harm to the conservative cause, harm to east-west relations and harm to the national discourse.
Ann, seriously. From now on, just stay off our side.
“Beth was speaking to the trolls. If you aren’t one, then carry on. Otherwise, Beth is right. The bots like rachel/nick/jesus/bethrigh (or singular bot as I believe they are one and the same) and the eager-beaver wannabes like “Robert” (who believes someone who calls him/herself “latino” and immediately thinks “illegal alien” and again betrays himself) have not been here to discuss, just spew.”
Posted by: Darleen at February 13, 2006 02:31 PM
Chris:
Yes, apparently Beth and Darleen (and I’m afraid lots of other people on this site) don’t want any dissenting opinion whatsoever. You’re allowed to stay on as long as you agree with them. That’s the democratic/patriotic ideals they’re fighting for. Hoorah!! What phonies.
And it’s no surprise that Beth and Darleen are friends – they share the same hypocritical and racist viewpoints – they deserve each other.
Darleen claims she’s here to “discuss” but tries to silence anyone who doesn’t follow the lock-step republitard mentality. Sorry Dar, we’re not going anywhere.
“A congressional report due out this week slams the government’s response to Hurricane Katrina, calling it a “failure of leadership” that left people stranded when they were most in need. “Our investigation revealed that Katrina was a national failure, an abdication of the most solemn obligation to provide for the common welfare,” the report says. “At every level — individual, corporate, philanthropic and governmental — we failed to meet the challenge that was Katrina. In this cautionary tale, all the little pigs built houses of straw.”
Darleen:
This is from today’s wire services. Still want to tell us that Bush is doing a great job? Or will you do what republitards did to Tom Kean (from the 9/11 Commission and one of the finest Republicans in this country) and start chewing out all the Republicans who participated in the quote above?
There are plenty of left wing blogs where people discuss things in a sane manner. You mention Kos, I’ll mention Little Green Footballs or Ace of Spades, where the right wing rhetoric is just as hateful. So get over yourselves.
Nice attempt at dodging the issue. Let me spell it out for you again: I have never seen you lefties go after one of your own the way that conservatives criticize Ann Coulter (and Michael Swvage, for that matter). It’s not a question of who has “hateful rhetoric” The question is, where is the self-policing once the hateful rhetoric occurs. As far as I can tell, the only ones who even attempt to do this are conservatives. Over there in lefty land, deranged moonbats such as Cindy Sheehan, Al Sharpton, Louis Farrakhan, Teddy Kennedy, Jesse Jackson, Michael Moore, Ward Churchill, etc. spew their vile garbage all day long and nobody on your side of the aisle ever says “boo” about it. In fact, they’re held up universally by your side as heroes.
OreganMuse:
The shoes on the other foot. I was on a liberal blog site the day Coretta Scott King died, and the racist trash that was spilling from some of the conservative bloggers was truly unbelievable. The majority of it is unrepeatable, but suffice it to say that she was called everything from a n—-r whore, to much, much worse. While lots of comments were being made by those leaning right regarding the wire tapping of King by J Edgar Hoover during the Kennedy administration, not one of them asked that the racist comments from the hard right stop. Not a single one.
All this “your side is worse than our side” is completely stupid and juvenile. How about agreeing to disagree?
Hmmm.
@ mantis
Why are you forcing me to ask for a link?
Got a link?
Hmmm.
link
Here’s one that references someone who was there. How about you mantis?
Hmmmm.
@ maggie
And how you know they are “conservative bloggers” since you were on a liberal website?
And isn’t it curious that I’ve been on many conservative blogs and I have yet to see anything like that at all.
So put up, or shut up.
was on a liberal blog site the day Coretta Scott King died, and the racist trash that was spilling from some of the conservative bloggers was truly unbelievable.
care to link?
‘course, Leftists would NEVER stoop to pretending to be ‘conservative’ then saying vile things… just like they’d never post under several different names in order to appear legion.
Darleen claims she’s here to “discuss” but tries to silence anyone
Uh… I’m just a commenter here, how can I “silence” anyone?
Oh, that’s right. Criticism of the Left and its dogma = censorship in Left Cult dictionary.
Hmmmm.
@ jesus
1. Congrats for regurgitating something from the MSM.
2. Bush is doing a good job, as good as possible when dealing with incompetents such as Gov Blanco and Mayor Nagin. Nagin who couldn’t be bothered to actually evacuate people after having declared a mandatory evacuation. Blanco for having her state police prevent emergency groups from entering New Orleans to provide food, water and shelter.
But that would be too difficult a concept for “libertards” like yourself to understand. That in a federal system of government it is up to the state and local authorities to maintain control and provide the first level of response. It would be nice if you libertards did understand, considering all the yapping you’ve done over funding of these “first responders”, but that would be asking far too much. Good heavens! Actual knowledge and logical thought.
I know it’s a dream, but someday you’ll escape this eternal ignorance and finally begin to understand that Barney really isn’t a purple dinosaur, he’s just a guy in a big purple dinosaur suit.
Don’t cry. Please don’t cry. The truth hurts.
3. Using the term “repulitards” automatically makes you a jackass. It might also make you a twit, but that’s subjective. But it definitely confers the title of jackass.
4. Tom Kean used to be my governor. He sucked then, he sucks harder now. The problem with using has-been politicians is that they start to think they can use it as a platform to restart their political career. So we got Department of Homeland Security.
Frankly that doesn’t make me feel safe. Do you? Does having an extra layer of bureaucracy make you feel safer?
There are two Roberts on this thread.
My only prior post was about 4.7 and 3-4.
Darleen warns about denial, and Rachel promptly, then, denies it. Nostra Damas should be so good.
Ed notes that Rachel’s denial is possibly the most ignorant thing he’s read today. True no doubt, but one can only marvel at Ed’s sources of ignorantisms, if this is only good for one day.
Darleen,
Well, what do you expect from a Socialist pot smoking liberal? LOL. Im the epitome of all that is wrong with mankind!
But really, is it Christian to call people names?
Posted by: Robert at February 13, 2006 12:40 PM
As I recall, jesus himself called the Pharisees names, “whited sepulchers” for one. I think it’s important to note that he was making a specific point, not slinging hate, however. But clearly name-calling per se is not a sin if he did it.
Do you think I am not a Christian because I don’t think like you? There is more to being a Christian than just thinking like you. Why don’t you read the Bible, Im sure you have one.
I looked at Beth’s blog. It has curse words on it. What if children look at it?
I thought you Republicans were about protecting the children.
I wouldn’t waste my time reading something with F words anyway. Not too much going on there.
Darleen. Beth. –
Coulter enjoys her popularity from the same ilk who both think and say the same shit she does -period.
and you know it…
ed
The story that Oreos were thrown at Steele is false. You referring to a site that talks about Oreos being passed out at a Steele speech does not support that story. You’ve got one guy who says he saw one Oreo in the air, but doesn’t know if it was aimed at Steele. From this we get endless references to Oreos being thrown at him? And what kind of link is Mantis supposed to give you? A link to every story ever written about Steele to prove the incident never happened? If you are asserting that it did, then clearly the burden is on you to come up with the link.
As for illegally obtaining credit reports, we’ve gone over this before. The campaign workers who did it were wrong, and they were fired and reported to the authorities by Chuck Schumer the day he learned about it. But on what basis are you saying this had anything to do with race?
And “name calling?” Are you serious? Yeah, it’s terrible the way the unhinged traitorous moonbat Saddam-loving Democrats have introduced name calling into politics.
And OregonMuse, I wasn’t sidestepping any point, and you don’t have to spell out anything for me. I was responding to Beth scolding people for coming to this blog and interrupting the high-minded discourse. Next time you’re going to use a condescending tone you might check to see if you’re even part of the conversation.
I don’t normally participate in comments, but since I’ve got insider knowledge, I just thought I’d let y’all know: The comments on this page posted under the names “tony,” “rachel,” “bethright,” “nick,” “jesus,” and “maggie” all came from the same company. And it’s one you’ve all heard of.
There’s no way to know whether these comments all came from the same person, of course, but the fact that they were all submitted with the same e-mail address sort of indicates that some shenanigans are afoot.
This isn’t my site. I don’t set or execute policy here. But the tone of these comments is really disappointing to me. Maybe a little less responding to open provocation might be in order.
Just a thought.
Chris – What race are ragheads ?
Chris – So the Oreos were passed out at a Steele event, not thrown, though the author claims to have seen one fly through the air. Are we to assume that the people passing out the Oreos were just there to ensure adequate blood sugar levels for those attending the event ? All you have attempted to prove is that there was not a swarm of Oreos being thrown in the air during the event. The existence of the Oreos, and the underlying BS double standard employed by the Left has not been shown to being anything other than true.
Credit reports – Why were they taken in the first place? Because he is a Republican ? How many other Republicans had their credit reports illegaly obtained? Or was it because he is a black Republican? But folks, you must remember, the Left in their highly enlightened state could never possibly be racist.
I was responding to Beth scolding people for coming to this blog and interrupting the high-minded discourse.
Until your side starts distancing itself from certifiable moonbats like Louis Farrakhan and Ted Rall to the same extent you demand conservatives avoid Ann Coulter, your complaints are nothing but laughable.
You have a great blog, but I think Ann Coulter had it right. The Muslims in this world who got upset about a bunch of cartoons can shove it! It’s time to quit apologizing for freedom of expression and quit worrying that any namecalling is going to setback any progress made between East and West. I think after all the riots, threats, and anger, it’s time to stand up for freedom of expression and tell the Islamists to mind their own religion and their own business.
You really do need to lighten up. Don’t you understand? Anne’s JOB is to be provocative and cause controversy. It is people like her that reinforce and ‘buck up’ people who would otherwise be mealy-mouthed moderates. Conservatives need vocal, controversial spokesmen who “stand up” to PC orthodoxy and aren’t afraid to say what they think, no matter how far from conventional wisdom. By showing she cares not a whit for ‘offensive’ PC speech codes, she is saying it is okay to stand up for what you believe in, to defend your conservative beliefs.
What a bunch of nonsense. This is making a mountain out of a mole hill. She called our enimies a demeaning name how awful. Next she will behead and burn them. We need to quit being so hyper sensitive for everyone elses feelings. Poor taste yes, major outrage get real.
At the risk of being labeled a “racist” myself, I confess I find it very troubling that conservative commentators like Mr. Hogberg are so offended by a few harsh words for our sworn enemies. Let us not forget that these enemies, who are committed to a way of life that is antithetical to our own, have killed thousands of our fellow citizens and would gladly kill millions more.
How can it be that calling these enemies “rag heads” is so intolerable, but killing them by the hundreds and thousands in Iraq and elsewhere is deserving of praise? After all, we on the right (and center) loudly applaud President Bush whenever he speaks of “destroying” our enemies. But Ann Coulter calling them “rag heads” is going too far? This is a ridiculous example of political correctness run amok. But “politically correct warfare” is an oxymoron, and a foolish and self-defeating way to fight a war.
Steven M. Warshawsky
http://www.therealitycheck.org/GuestColumnist/swarshawsky021306.htm
—-
The examples of liberals and Democrats hurling equally detestable epithets at their opponents (Jesus freaks, fundies, nazis, flat-earthers, christers, house niggers, Klansmen, etc.) are too numerous to catalog, and yet Democrats see themselves as the paragons of virtue and tolerance and respect.
We are refering to Muslim terrorist for Allah who call us infidels and Christians “Cross suckers”. Those are the raghead, camel jocks, etc. And what about those cartactures of mohamad? There was no rage when Egypt published them. Just like the libs, double standards. Where is the mass outrage for that? The ambient din of a million crickets is louder.
Heaven forbid that we should use “bad names” to describe the city burning Muslims who follow the pedophile for prophet. They only walk in step to the Quran, Hadiths with their call to convert or kill us all. Dhimmitude, look it up people.
This type of reaction to an Ann Coulter speach is really a hoot. She calls an Arab a “raghead” and all of a sudden she has committed “hate speach” and gets compared to every hate group from the KKK to the NAZI party, yet the same people who condemn this type of act on the part of Coulter seem content to remain silent on the fact that the UN human rights committee is being headed by some of the most murderous butchers on the planet. I guess in the view of Coulters critics, their interpretations of “hate speach” must be condemned but outright murder is OK as long as other nations maintian their killing within their own borders.
But Islam should be repected… OK let me ask this, who in their right mind would live Muhamhead’s teachings as a certified terrorist and 54 year old child rapist (Ayesha was 6 at the time)? Who would follow a cult that requires the husband to kill his wife if she leaves Islam?
Ragheads.
Who would be offended by Coulter calling our nursery burning killers of Allah for cartoons, “ragheads”? Only the uneducated who haven’t taken the time to learn about Islam’s historical call for complete domination. And that’s in their own written words and history. And if you can’t even name the century Muhamhead was born in, don’t confuse your opinions of Islam as facts.
Deal with it. For the most part we learned all we needed to know about Islam on 9-11. The rest have apparently forgotten. Even Daniel Pipes is dancing around Muslim terrorist excusers like CAIR. Coulter hasn’t forgotten and we need to remind the rest.
In every war America has fought we have had a derogotory term for our enemies. Those terms are commonly used by all (and we all know it). Ann’s sin is saying it in a public forum. Why is that a sin? Because the left will know that the right does not care for Islamofacists or even Islam in general? I think they already know what Ann Coulters opinion is on that subject..and what the majority of the right wing that she represents thinks. I also dont believe that Ann nor those folks on the right that love Ann give a hoot what the left thinks about the subject or about them.
Ann has said time and time again that we are at war with a culture…a religion. Did anyone expect reverance from her? A “sensitive” war aint what these people have in mind. Winning the war is the goal, not making sure our enemy is happy with our rhetoric, or that the leftist PC checkers have nothing to complain about.
Hmmm.
1.
“ignorantisms”. Almost as good as “republitards”.
You’re rather amusing in a freakshow sort of way robert. Keep up the good work.
2.
*shrug* thrown or handed out. You don’t think people handing out oreos is just as bad? You think that’s acceptable behavior?
And I notice that you didn’t address the eyewitness’s comments that the person handing them out was specifically in response to Steele’s presence.
A clumsy evasion that.
3.
*shrug* how about something that backs up his assertion by quoting or linking to someone who was *there*. You know. Like I did.
4.
Got a link? Since you’re the one asserting that Chuck Schumer turned these people in to law enforcement. I frankly haven’t read any instance where this was alleged. I’ve read where Chuck said he had nothing to do with it, but never a single instance where Chuck was supposed to have actually *turned them in*.
So. Got a link?
5. Curious when it’s something the White House is alleged to have done the blame automatically goes to the President. When it’s something a Democrat does, it’s always the lowbies who did things without higher authorisation.
Pardon me. You logical inconsistencies are showing.
ed
To answer some of your questions:
“*shrug* thrown or handed out. You don’t think people handing out oreos is just as bad?”
No, I don’t think it’s just as bad. You really think handing something out at a rally is the same as throwing things at the candidates? What kind of idiocy is that? I can assure you that if I’m on stage, I’d much rather people in the audience be holding food than throwing it at me. I was specifically commenting on the canard that Democrats threw Oreos at Steele. Now that it turns out it’s not true, you start talking about what’s “just as bad.” That still doesn’t make you’re original false story true.
“*shrug* how about something that backs up his assertion by quoting or linking to someone who was *there*. You know. Like I did.”
Your inability to think logically astounds me. To repeat: You assert something happened. Mantis says it didn’t. The logical thing is to show proof that it happened. Proving a negative is virtually impossible. But since you ask, the Baltimore Sun, following the debate you mentioned, reported the following on 10/1/02: “Ehrlich spokesman Paul Schurick said Democrats in the audience went over the top. They booed Ehrlich’s wife and parents, he said, and distributed Oreo cookies in the audience — a racial insult apparently aimed at GOP lieutenant governor nominee Michael S. Steele, who is black.”
Do you think the Republican spokesman would have mentioned it if the Steele was “pelted” (your word) with Oreos?
Then, on 10/31/02, the Washington Post wrote: “supporters of the Democratic candidate for governor, Kathleen Kennedy Townsend, mocked him by bringing Oreo cookies to a debate last month, Ehrlich said.” Hmmm. Still no “pelting.”
Then, in the Baltimore Sun on 8/31/04: “Steele and Ehrlich still talk about how supporters of former Lt. Gov. Kathleen Kennedy Townsend tossed Oreo cookies at Steele during the lone gubernatorial debate in 2002.”
So now, two years later, the story is that Oreos were “tossed” at them. Funny how it took two years for them to be outraged enough about the Oreos being thrown to finally say something about it. Who’s the bullshitter here?
But I forgot. Holding an Oreo and throwing it are the same thing in your world.
And by the way, the Democrats claim there were no Oreos. The only people saying there were are Republican operatives. This doesn’t mean the satory isnauomatically false, but it doesn’t make it automatically tue, either.
Let me get this right, Chris, let us all make sure we understand this. It is entirely appropriate within the context of the current political discourse to disparage a candidate’s race, ie. passing out Oreos at one of his events ? That is alright with you ? You do not expect any more from your party ?
Once again, we see that, like most matters, the left likes to preen and pose and brag about their moral superiority, but in the end, they condone that which they condemn in others, so long as the target is a Republican.
Nah… she’s right. I would have agreed with you a year or two ago, but right now I think “ragheads” will do just fine. We’re at war with these backwards idiots, and we might as well stop pretending we’re at a tea party.
JD
Perhaps if you read what I wrote before responding your comments would make more sense.
First, there is a dispute as to whether the Oreos were ever passed out.
Second, and more importantly, what I took issue with was the fact that ed was repeating the story that Steele was “pelted” with Oreos. The fact is that the Republicans have been spreading a lie about what went on, and every time I’ve pointed that out, the responses have had to do with everything but my point. Do you think the responsible thing for the Republicans to do was to spread a racially charged lie? How does that help?
Oh puhlease! These are the same people that are out in the streets rioting over cartoons, when they should be at work. I think Coulter is right on.
missing the point.
Ann used the derogitory term Raghead on purpose, not to hurl an insult or offend anyone (but liberals) to make the point that the same people who engage in terrorism, beheadings, crulity to women, slavery, and general savagry, in the case of Iran threating the destruction of a nation, can’t take it when they are called a name, and liberals in this country bend over backwards to be nice to them as they plot to kill us.
Sun zu says if your enemy is mad enrage him.