Coulter may be a lot of things: she can sure write a book, and make an argument. She can cause the Libtards to wail and gnash their teeth in agony. She's a smart lady, even if she can't pick a Presidential winner to save her life.
But an enemy of conservatives? Never. She's just committed the mortal sin (in conservative politics, anyways) of exercising her own (better) judgement. If there's anything that drives the perpetually-panty-bunched crazy it's a lack of mindless orthodoxy, you know, that thing they often ascribe to their political opposite numbers --- and in that context, describe as a mental defect.
This "debate" is mostly symptomatic of what's really wrong with modern Conservatism; it's lack of pragmatism, and the hijacking of the term itself.
If you are a Conservative, then you should be, by definition, in favor of defending the values of Classical Liberalism, as they apply to American life. What you seek to conserve is that which was created by (Classically) liberal means. The most basic of these values are these:
a) Freedom of expression, association, conscience and religion
b) The ability to question, audit, examine, and even challenge, authority
c) The right to exercise those freedoms without having your column dropped, and your personal e-mail exposed by a website that no one in his right mind reads anymore, and which uses the word "God" the way most people use commas.
World Net Daily is, of course, free to hire and employ anyone they wish to. They should just stop pretending that their decision to drop Coulter as regular contributor had anything to do with "conservatism". I used to read WND regularly, and they're a bunch of morons who wouldn't know real "conservatism" if it bit them on the ass. If it can't be viewed though the simple mindset of God-Guns-and-Gays, then it isn't a subject worthy of "Real" conservatism to the WND type.
Somehow, many self-proclaimed conservatives have forgotten that individuals have rights. Usually because there are some aspects of individual freedom which conflict with religious dogma, and because today's Christian has often been robbed of the capacity to rationally reconcile the two. This causes him to lose the ability to compromise, or even to admit that he might not always be right.
They are right in some respects; abortion is an abomination, and gays should not be married if only to preserve the traditions of the institution. But to object to someone taking a speaking engagement because you believe the people she's speaking to are disgusting sinners whom the Good Lord has decided to punish with AIDS, is taking things a smidgen too far. You are, in effect, arguing that Ann Coulter's freedom of speech and associations, the gay group's right to invite whoever they decide they want to listen to, can't co-exist with your right to be a bunch of Bible-Thumping douchebags.
This idea that Christians are a put-upon and oppressed group that has no political power, and which is continually victimized by libertine society has finally gotten to the point where I can't stand to listen to it anymore. You're beginning to sound like Al Sharpton does when it comes to race, and it's off-putting, as well as infantile. And while you cry about all the intolerance for the Christian point of view, you show an astounding amount of intolerance for your enemies; What happened to the Christian virtues of "Turn the Other Cheek", "Love thy neighbor" or "Love the Sinner, but Hate the Sin?"
Oh, right. That was all propaganda; Jesus didn't really mean to love that particular Sinner, he really meant something else entirely, you see.
Scream all you want about Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck, and how they're reviving the "Old and Forgotten America", pulling in half-a-million people at a rally, and that somehow this is living proof of a Christian revival in America; most of the people there didn't show up to pray -- they went because they want a fucking job, lower taxes, and no part of ObamaCare, and this was a better way of showing their displeasure with their government than firebombing the White House would be. The truth is that Palin and Beck are starting to get on my nerves, too.
It's not that I disagree with them,or most of the Stick-up-their-Ass Conservatives; I don't, on most subjects, it's just that they're insufferable douchebags in action. As soon as they get off the"This is our country, and these are our rights" stuff and mention that word...God...they lose me, mostly because they use it as a marketing tool to differentiate themselves from the democrats they'd like to replace, or Keith Olbermann.
And that's what the morons at World Net Daily are: insufferable douchebags who on the one hand bemoan that the world does not pay heed to, nor tolerate their values -- the values espoused by the Constitution, those values that made America great, and of which they claim to be the great defenders -- while on the other, they deny that very courtesy they reserve for themselves to one of their own because she extended those rights and courtesies to another group of people condemned by the Almighty.
I'll bet half the people who think this way are probably closet fags, themselves, and twice as bad and insufferable as most liberals. At least you can get a libtard to shut up by saying, as loudly as you can, so as to draw attention "what if we replaced the word "Chardonnay" with"Black"or "Woman"? Would you find it funny then? Well, would you...?"
Doesn't matter what the subject or context is; that line always stops 'em dead in their tracks.
I stopped calling myself a Conservative once I had realized that most of the people who were doing likewise were some of the stupidest sons-of-bitches I had ever seen in my life, who didn't have a thought in their head that wasn't in some way lifted right out of Scripture, or planted there by Pastor Bob after he got in a quick reach-around and a $10 donation. They compound this stupidity by failing to realize that much of what they advocate for (mostly, their advocacy is against this or that) would make them indistinguishable from the Taliban.
Ann Coulter should be able to speak about conservatism, or any other subject, she wants, to anyone she chooses to grace with her intelligence and eloquence.