Ann Coulter and bad words.

Putz links to this "Open Letter to CPAC" from the very concerned and earnest Sean Hackbarth.

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.

At what point in the last 20 years, Mr. Hackbarth, did Ms. Coulter's "wit" serve your movement well? When she was calling Bill Clinton a "good rapist"? When she joked that Tim McVeigh should've blown up the New York Times? Or how about when she said we need to execute John Walker Lindh to cower liberals into being loyal Americans?

Because all of these statements were made long before she was invited to last year's CPAC and dropped the "raghead" bomb.

Where were the protests then?

By the way, is calling John Edwards a "faggot" really worse than suggesting a sitting President be assassinated or advocating the forced religious conversion of the entire Middle East?

Really?

It's telling that "conservatives" are only now worried about Coulter hurting their cause after she publicly used two epithets, as if what she's stood for in the past without the use of bad words has "served the movement well."