Why Ann Coulter matters
Glenn "Instapundit" Reynolds accuses me today of "degrad(ing) the blogosphere" because I wrote a post at Crooks & Liars observing that Reynolds had done nothing to denounce the violence-advocating and epithet-spewing remarks of Ann Coulter at last weeks highly prestigious Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC), and I encouraged C&L readers to e-mail Reynolds and ask why this was. As I documented here, the CPAC is one of the most important Republican events of the year, and its invited speakers along with Coulter included Dick Cheney, Ken Mehlman, Bill Frist, Newt Gingrich and Reynolds himself.
As I explained in the C&L post, my belief that Reynolds has an obligation to either denounce or defend Coulters comments is largely based on the fact that Reynolds routinely lectures Democrats on what he claims is their obligation to denounce "extremists on the Left" even when the extremists in question are totally fringe and inconsequential figures who have nothing to do with Democrats, and unlike Coulter here dont have huge throngs of followers and arent invited to be the featured speaker at the most important political events of the year. I specifically cited this post from Reynolds self-righteously taking Democrats to task for their grave moral failure in remaining silent about that oh-so-significant, long-standing icon of the Democratic Party, Ward Churchill.
Yep! We agree.
Furthermore, any Rethug who does not renounce her, should be saddled with her remarks in 2006.
Does anyone have a film of her speech?
We can turn her into the Michael Moore of the Right (Sorry, Mike, no offense)