The post just below is, as it says, an open letter from a variety of folks to CPAC organizers and sponsors, about the unpleasantness of Ann Coulter.

Sean Hackbarth at The American Mind has been the driving force, and James Joyner has the full list of signatories in his post. (I’m not even going to try to keep up with all of them here.)

There has been an enormous amount of discussion about Coulter’s behavior. I won’t rehash it all here. Suffice it to say that the only thing that matters to Ann is Ann, and that’s reflected in her behavior. She wants to get on TV, so she says crazy things, knowing that she will. But her words and actions don’t help the conservative movement. And this weekend’s mess is only the latest example. Coulter managed to hijack the CPAC storyline and take it for herself.

To be sure, she’ll sell more books and probably get more bookings on crappy television shows — where she can sell more books.

But in the future, the good folks who run CPAC and other, similar events need not give her the forum to spout her drivel.

Jim: Oh, go away, Ann. Go away. At your next speaking engagement, just scream “POOP” at the top of your lungs. The grownups have work to do.

Marshall, UPDATING: Bobby Eberle, who’s been a leader of grassroots conservatives for quite a while, ran a fascinating piece in his online newsletter this morning.

Few columns have touched off the feedback that poured in yesterday when GOPUSA ran a piece by Accuracy in Media’s Cliff Kincaid. The author wrote on some of the events occurring at this year’s Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC), but he mostly focused his attention on columnist Ann Coulter’s use of the word “faggot.” The reaction to the column was intense and, at the same time, very disappointing.

Read the whole thing here.

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.

Sincerely,

Sean Hackbarth
The American Mind

Marshall Manson
On Tap

James Joyner
Outside the Beltway

And many others…

Over on National Review’s The Corner, Master Watcher of the Left Grassroots Byron York observes:

I just saw a brief posting by firedoglake founder Jane Hamsher that sheds some light on that site’s emphasis on the Plame matter.  Defending Arianna Huffington against accusations that she places too much emphasis on celebrities, Hamsher writes that the Huffington Post and firedoglake use similar strategies to attract readers:

Do people go to the HuffPo because Geoffrey Stone is there? No, they draw big traffic because John Cusack and Alec Baldwin and Harry Shearer are there. But Arianna uses that to provide a platform for important thinkers like Geoffrey Stone who in turn have the opportunity to have greater influence and a bigger audience than they otherwise would.

We do something a bit similar. Atrios says Plame is like porn and it is. We get our big traffic from it, that’s what people love to read about. We use that big traffic to do our series on racism and war profiteering and labor that otherwise probably wouldn’t get much traffic at all. I don’t care if those posts get 10 comments, we’ll keep doing them and they can (and have) begun to impact the consciousness of the blogosphere. I think that’s the responsible thing to do.

And with that little revelation, a bit more of the world makes sense. We know what gets attention. We know why there are naked women on Page Three of British tabloids. We know why Drudge will use the siren to report that “a Washington Insider” predicted Kerry would pick Hillary as his running mate - even if (if my suspicions and sources are correct) that the “Washington Insider” was a Clinton-obsessed conservative who had no sources in the Kerry campaign and was just speculating.

And, under this theory, you need a little controversy, something shocking and attention-grabbing to get people to pay attention to the things they ought. You need cheese sauce to make the asparagus taste good. You need pictures of naked women to get people to read the Playboy articles. You need to accuse four 9/11 widows of enjoying their husbands’ deaths in order to get people to read the (hopefully) meater conservative arguments in your book.

I guess what makes that quote so revelatory to me is the ease of self-justification. Arianna can say, “I need to put this celebrity’s inane comments on my site, because it will bring in traffic, so that people read the more worthwhile postings.” Lefty bloggers can write, ”I need to put up some unproven rumor about Rove to get attention to the other things I write.” It’s all for the greater good. It’s a brief bending of our standards in order to pander to the baser tastes of the public… in order to accomplish the bigger goal of informing them of news and analysis we think is vital.

Thus, supporting the slaughter of puppies isn’t satire; it’s a marketing tool.

I don’t know whether I disdain this strategy or want to emulate it.

UPDATE: In related news, Michael Reagan is comparing the Democratic Party to the Sunni insurgents in Iraq. (Hat tip, OTB)

Marshall, UPDATING — April 7, 2007: For reasons known only to Google, the image that Jim used in this now year old post is scoring very high in an image search for “puppies”. For those of you arriving by the route, a warm welcome. Please surf around. However, for the very few who are tempted to send a screaming e-mail or leave a blistering comment attacking us for wanting to kill puppies, please take the time to actually read the post. You’ll discover that it’s obviously sarcastic. And if you spend any time on this site at all, you’ll learn that we all love puppies. Indeed, two of us have puppies of our own. (Here’s a post with a picture of mine.) Thanks again for visiting. Enjoy the photo and the site.

Here begins the original post:

So - as many of you are probably bored of hearing, I have a book coming out. The publication date has been pushed back a month, from August to September.

I’ve been examining all the ways that books get publicized, and it’s clear that in the world of political books, there is no author who is better and more effective at getting publicity than… Ann Coulter.

Like Coulter’s Godless, my book actually talks about the politically-active 9/11 widows a bit, but instead of accusing them of enjoying their husbands’ deaths, I made the mistake of actually quoting them, and spotlighting how the Jersey girls kept offering wild conspiracy theories and factually wrong accounts of the attacks (including alleging that the American and United pilots steered the planes into the targets for the hijackers). Sure, that might be interesting and showing off under-reported, under-noticed facts, but it’s not going to generate controversy and press attention.

Coulter is, indeed, a marketing genius. She now has New Jersey legislators launching an effort to ban her book. (Apparently, the First Amendment is as optional in the Garden State as the Second Amendment is in the District of Columbia.) This is the sort of work that gets you a $3 million advance.

So I’m following the Coulter example and kicking off the publicity tour early by aiming for her particular brand of controversy, taking a widely beloved figure and denouncing it without mercy. So here goes:

“Puppies must die.

You heard me. Oh, sure, they look cute and cuddly, but all of their yipping and yapping only confirms that they’re singing from the anti-Bush songbook. And they piddle on the rug, just like so many other liberals.

These self-obsessed puppies seem genuinely unaware that 9-11 was an attack on our nation and acted like as if they didn’t even understand what the war on terror is all about. Ask them for a strategy to fight the war on terror, and all they have to offer is “woof.”

“Woof,” indeed.

They believe the entire country was required to marinate in their exquisite personal agony — and marvel at the fact that they love to play with a chew toy. Apparently, denouncing Bush was part of the closure process. You can hear it in their YIP YIP YIP mewling noises. 

These puppies are constantly lionized on TV and cute posters and notebook covers and screen savers, reveling in their status as celebrities. It’s time for someone to call them out, and stand up to the insidious forces of… Big Puppy.”

The face of the enemy. Don’t be fooled.

Cam: Too many big words. I think you need to re-tool your message. Something like:

Puppies really are the animal embodiment of liberalism. They eat their own feces, piss all over your carpet, and generally try to control your life. Ever actually own a dog? You don’t take it for a walk when you want to. You take it outside when it wants to go outside, and to hell with your wants and needs.

Oh sure, puppies (and liberals) look cute, but they’re dumb as rocks and (in some cases) downright dangerous. We’ve got shelters to euthanize dangerous dogs… why aren’t we putting some liberals “to sleep” as well?