Ann Coulter's "Borat" Moment

(updated below)

Sometimes I think that Ann Coulter can't possibly be for real. Part of me expects her to rip her wig off and reveal that she's really just another Sasha Baren Cohen character, a crazier, less-endearing version of Borat.

Like Borat, she has a knack for getting people to betray their prejudices. As you've surely heard by now, Coulter said the following in her speech at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) today:

“I was going to have a few comments on the other Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards, but it turns out you have to go into rehab if you use the word ‘faggot,’ so I — so kind of an impasse, can’t really talk about Edwards.”

Think Progress has the video. More revealing than the comment itself--which is sadly typical of Coulter--is the way the crowd at CPAC reacted to the slur. As you can hear on the video, there's an initial "oooh" followed by boisterous laughing and applause. It's pretty hard to interpret that reaction as anything other than a confirmation that much of the crowd harbors some very real anti-gay prejudice.

To drive this point home, just substitute Obama for Edwards and the n-word for "faggot." If Coulter had said that, and the crowd had reacted the way it did to the Edwards comment, would anyone question that the audience was populated by bigots? Of course not. Now explain to me how the Edwards comment is distinguishable from my hypothetical Obama comment in any meaningful sense.

This goes well beyond simply using a politically incorrect term. Coulter intentionally and gratuitously used a hateful slur to describe a major Democratic presidential candidate at a major Republican event. . . and the crowd laughed. In any sane universe, that would be a really big deal and an enormous embarrassment to the Republican party.

Don't tell that to the folks at the Hotline, though. After quoting the Human Rights Campaign's denouncement of Coulter's remark, they write:

Next, there'll be calls for Republican candidates to disassociate themselves from Coulter's remarks. Unfairly, ex-MA Gov. Mitt Romney faces the biggest burden: he spoke right before Coulter and praised her. . . not knowing what she planned to say.

Good grief. First of all, Ann Coulter has NEVER delivered a speech where she didn't say something horribly inappropriate or bigoted. It's her MO. Last year at this same event she referred to Muslims several times as "ragheads." She has accused both Bill and Hillary Clinton of being gay and referred to Al Gore as a "total fag" just a few months ago. This is what she does, and anyone who stands up next to her on a stage (and praises her!) deserves to be tarred by her bile.

Moreover, as the editors of the Hotline well know, if something like this had happened at a major Democratic event, every single conservative politician, pundit, and blogger would be apoplectic and would demand that everyone even remotely associated with the event disavow the remarks and refuse to ever be seen in public again with the person who made them. The person who made the comments would then become an instant pariah, unwelcome at any respectable events and certainly never allowed anywhere near a television camera.

But Ann Coulter's invitation never seems to get lost in the mail. She's not only welcomed on to the same stage as the Republican presidential candidates, she's used in the promotional material for the event. Conference goers line up around the block for her autograph. And not only is she not a pariah, she manages to find her way onto the cover of TIME Magazine and is routinely invited into the studios of every major news network.

Yes, how entirely unreasonable for Democrats to demand that Republicans disavow a vile slur made in their presence. How terribly unfair to ask Mitt Romney to distance himself from disgusting comments made by a person he introduced at a major Republican event. Oh the injustice of it all.

Coulter is, without question, a vile festering sore on the face of our political discourse. But, in one sense, she serves a valuable purpose. What's remarkable is not that she strays so often from the bounds of sanity and decency. It's that whenever she does so, legions of conservatives follow her into the abyss. They buy her books and line up for autographs. They cackle at her bigoted remarks and nod their heads in agreement as she spreads her hate-filled delusions. And the more outrageous she gets, the more books she sells and more invitations come her way. In a very real sense, her outlandishness helps illuminate what much of the modern Republican party has become. And it isn't pretty. Like Borat, Coulter has a way of getting those around her to reveal some of the not so flattering aspects of their character and belief system. If only she were funny, it might actually be entertaining to watch.

UPDATE: I should point out that, with only a few exceptions, most right wing bloggers who have commented on Coulter's slur have been quick to denounce it (see memeorandum for a sampling). Good for them. The problem, however, is that Coulter continues to be treated as a mainstream figure. Republicans and conservatives who associate with her continue to pay no political price for doing so. That's where the double-standard lies. Coulter is not just a right-wing version of Michael Moore. That's a lazy comparison. There is no left-wing figure who is remotely comparable to Coulter in terms of vileness, notoriety, and general acceptance in respectable circles and the media.