The Crossed Pond

Today was the day for the Conservative Political Action Conference, the most important event this early in the 2008 race for either party. It essentially functions as a “first look” for the hardcore Republican base at the early candidates for the presidential nomination. Of course, this year, given the head start everybody’s been getting, you would more accurately say that this year’s CPAC is a second look.

Speaking today were Rudy Giuliani, Sam Brownback, Mitt Romney, and Ann Coulter (among others). John McCain passed. I still haven’t made up my mind on whether that was a good or bad call on his part. There’s a lot of coverage on the speeches and receptions and festivities, but for my money the best is from Captain’s Quarters, who were in attendance, live-blogged some of the speeches, posted video, and then did podcasts with 1 on 1 interviews with some of the candidates who did the gauntlet at blogger’s row (already a common necessity at these sort of things).

The two early things that people are coming away with is 1. An apparently stellar performance by Mitt Romney, and 2. Ann Coulter calling John Edwards a faggot.

On the first, I’ve been saying for awhile that I don’t expect Mitt Romney to make it to Iowa. I think the damage done simply with the base’s first look at him is probably insurmountable. His only hope going into the presidential race was in being the viable mainstream candidate who could also sew up the socons in the primary (which is the only way anybody’s going to be able to beat Rudy). After the utter shellacking he’s gotten over the last month over his…let’s call it “malleability”…on social conservatism, it didn’t look like his candidacy would have much chance of ever getting very far.

His performance today, however, was by all accounts very strong. He came out on the offensive, he wasn’t afraid to speak at length about social issues (something Rudy, understandably, chose not to mention), nor was he afraid to defend himself on the idea that he “came around” circa 2002 (sort of a difficult triangulation when you want to run on your record, to ask voters to discount roughly a third of it out of hand as belonging to “some other Romney”). Will it be enough to maybe limp him back over the viability line? Tough to say. But at the very least, his positive reception, and the ensuing positive coverage, is probably enough to earn him a second look. What he is able to do with that is anybody’s guess, but I suppose we’ll see how good he is at tap-dancing now.

The second big story out of CPAC is of course Ann Coulter’s faggot remark. To quote:

“I was going to talk about John Edwards but these days, you have to go into rehab if you say the word ‘faggot.’”

Now, I don’t give much a shit what Ann Coulter says. Compared to her, Michael Moore is Walter fuckin’ Cronkite. But it’s not Ann Coulter that’s worth getting in a fuss about, but her amazing hold on a very significant chunk of the Republican base. Apparently, her comment blew the roof off the joint. That she followed Rudy Giuliani and Mitt Romney and was, for all intents and purposes, the marquee speaker at the conference today, is enough of a damning indictment about the state of some segments of the Republican party (of course, Laura Ingraham was the Master of Ceremonies for the Ronald Reagan Banquet, so I’m not sure this is so surprising).

In any case, that she was invited to speak is one thing, that she would make that joke is another, that she would KILL with it though, is perhaps the thing that makes my heart sink the most. And I’m not one to get much worked up about off-color humor of any stripe, but I want to put out two conservative perspectives on it, both of which I agree with, one of which I found surprising.

First, Andrew Sullivan:

When you see her in such a context, you realize that she truly represents the heart and soul of contemporary conservative activism, especially among the young. The standing ovation for Romney was nothing like the eruption of enthusiasm that greeted her….She is the new Republicanism. The sooner people recognize this, the better.

And later…

That’s the base. It’s a party that wants nothing to do with someone like me. All I heard and saw was loathing: loathing of Muslims, of “illegals,” of gays, of liberals, of McCain. The most painful thing for me was the sight of so many young people growing up believing that this is conservatism. I feel like an old-style Democrat in 1968.

One of the reasons that we started this site was to register our collective disgust at the hijacking of the conservative movement by these kind of people and this kind of thing. But, in making that distinction, I want to run another quote that, I feel, explains the distinction between being socially conservative (which I have enough of a dislike for, but can at least intellectually respect and agree to disagree with), and being a right-wing dickwad who has smeared the conservative legacy and is currently running the Republican party, and the country, into the ground (not to put too fine a point on it).

The quote is from the aforementioned Captain’s Quarters:

Yeah, that’s just what CPAC needs — an association with homophobia. Nice work, Ann.

At some point, Republicans will need to get over their issues with homosexuality. 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.

I’m not going to spend much time on my own high horse about this, because it seems to me just about any reasonable person would agree that calling a political opponent a faggot in a scripted speech at a major political convention is…well, bad. I mean what is she, a retard?

And, Andrew Sullivan is right, to a point. The right can’t just chalk it up to a loose cannon making an off-the-cuff off-color remark. When you invite Ann Coulter to speak at CPAC in the first place, giver her a rock star’s reception, and cheer until the roof blows off after her remarks, it’s kind of hard to disown anything and give anybody any reason to take the walkback at all seriously. Ann Coulter, at this point, is probably more influential in the Republican party than, say, Bob Dole or Newt Gingrich combined. That’s a sad fucking state of affairs.

But Ed Morrissey at CQ is right too. She NEEDN’T represent the Republican party, or any significant part of it. Even the socially conservative viewpoint (which I don’t share) NEED NOT be completely devoid of intellectual or ethical merit. I mean, I’ll still disagree with it and oppose it, but it doesn’t necessarily raise my visceral disgust (in theory). We can certainly have a civil national conversation on what we want American values to be.

But not if Ann Coulter has any place at the table. Even social conservatives, who are so quick to point out the kind of values they DON”T want, have every reason to include her kind of harpy cynical maliciousness on that list, as well as all those who aid and abet her as a mouthpiece for any kind of Republicanism.

That they don’t is why the Republican party is currently in so much trouble, both electorally and, frankly, morally. Good on Captain’s Quarters for recognizing that. But good too for Andrew Sullivan for putting out that we shouldn’t be very quick to excuse.