Why is Instapundit so quiet about Ann Coulter?

Congratulations to all C&L'ers who e-mailed the right-wing bloggers we named in this post, demanding to know why they were so conspicuously silent about Ann Coulter's repugnant remarks at the Conservative Political Action Conference this past week. Your e-mails forced Michelle Malkin, Jonah Goldberg and Kathryn Jean Lopez to end their silence and acknowledge that one of the most influential pro-Bush pundits spewed some truly deranged hate-mongering as part of her featured speech at the most significant conservative event of the year (other speakers including Dick Cheney, Bill Frist, Ken Mehlman, George Allen and Newt Gingrich-the heart and soul of the Republican rty).

And credit where it's due - while Goldberg's condemnation was whiny, half-hearted and reluctant, and Lopez's was non-existent (she asks why we don't just ignore Coulter without realizing that Coulter was the featured speaker at the most prestigious conservative event of the year and is one of the country's most prominent pro-Bush pundits with a huge GOP following), Malkin's denunciation of Coulter and her remarks is fairly straightforward and clear (although Coulter's purpose is hardly "nothing more than (to) get a cheap laugh" - when she urged violence against "ragheads," she received a "boisterous ovation" from the crowd).

And, of course, the question remains: if Coulter's views are so repugnant and extreme, why does she continue to play such a prominent role in the "conservative" movement and have such a large GOP following?

Still silent, however, are the usually talkative and opinionated Instapundit, Powerline's John Hinderaker, and Hugh Hewitt. The silence is particularly inexcusable for Instapundit, not just because he was a featured speaker at the same Conference along with Coulter (although that is true), and not just because he loves to hold himself out as a responsible, mainstream Bush-lover who disassociates himself from the Right-wing fringe (although he does hold himself out as that). Instead, his silence is so deafening and inexcusable because he frequently and self-righteously demands that Democrats step up and condemn wholly irrelevant "fringe leftists," even when (as is not the case for Reynolds and Coulter here) the Democrats in questions have nothing to do with such figures and have no connection to them. Here, for instance, is Reynolds sermonizing to Democrats on their obligation to condemn the obscure and inconsequential Ward Churchill:...
Why is Instapundit so quiet about Ann Coulter?

Congratulations to all C&L’ers who e-mailed the right-wing bloggers we named in this post, demanding to know why they were so conspicuously silent about Ann Coulter’s repugnant remarks at the Conservative Political Action Conference this past week. Your e-mails forced Michelle Malkin, Jonah Goldberg and Kathryn Jean Lopez to end their silence and acknowledge that one of the most influential pro-Bush pundits spewed some truly deranged hate-mongering as part of her featured speech at the most significant conservative event of the year (other speakers including Dick Cheney, Bill Frist, Ken Mehlman, George Allen and Newt Gingrich - the heart and soul of the Republican Party).

And credit where it’s due - while Goldberg’s condemnation was whiny, half-hearted and reluctant, and Lopez’s was non-existent (she asks why we don’t just ignore Coulter without realizing that Coulter was the featured speaker at the most prestigious conservative event of the year and is one of the country’s most prominent pro-Bush pundits with a huge GOP following), Malkin’s denunciation of Coulter and her remarks is fairly straightforward and clear (although Coulter's purpose is hardly "nothing more than (to) get a cheap laugh" - when she urged violence against "ragheads," she received a "boisterous ovation" from the crowd).

And, of course, the question remains: if Coulter's views are so repugnant and extreme, why does she continue to play such a prominent role in the "conservative" movement and have such a large GOP following?

Still silent, however, are the usually talkative and opinionated Instapundit, Powerline's John Hinderaker, and Hugh Hewitt. The silence is particularly inexcusable for Instapundit, not just because he was a featured speaker at the same Conference along with Coulter (although that is true), and not just because he loves to hold himself out as a responsible, mainstream Bush-lover who disassociates himself from the Right-wing fringe (although he does hold himself out as that). Instead, his silence is so deafening and inexcusable because he frequently and self-righteously demands that Democrats step up and condemn wholly irrelevant "fringe leftists," even when (as is not the case for Reynolds and Coulter here) the Democrats in questions have nothing to do with such figures and have no connection to them.

Here, for instance, is Reynolds sermonizing to Democrats on their obligation to condemn the obscure and inconsequential Ward Churchill:

It's just that the right has done a better job of muzzling and marginalizing its idiots, while the Left has embraced them. . .

I keep hearing that there's a silent majority on the Left that doesn't agree with these things. I keep waiting for it to stop being silent.

So Glenn Reynolds appears at the same event as a woman who stands up and urges violence against "ragheads," terrorist attacks on Supreme Court Justices, and the assassination of a former President – and then he says nothing afterwards to denounce or condemn those comments. But Democrats who never met or even heard of Ward Churchill, never attended an event with him, never had anything to do with him – why, all of them have an obligation to stand up and denounce him. And unlike Ann Coulter, Ward Churchill isn’t being invited to the most important political events of the year, doesn't have a huge following (or a following at all) on the Left, and isn't selling hateful best-selling screeds.

Why is Professor Reynolds so silent about his co-speaker’s hateful and violence-advocating rants?

Why does Professor Reynolds sermonize to Democrats that they should "muzzle and marginalize their idiots" why he hides in the corner, afraid to condemn Ann Coulter’s remarks, even though she's one of the most influential pundits in his Party and received a boisterous ovation from his fellow "conservatives" when she urged violence against "ragheads"?

Why would Professor Reynolds participate in an event that sponsors a speech urging violence against Muslims and the domestic political opponents of Republicans?

You can ask him these questions and others here: Pundit@Instapundit.com.

--posted by Glenn Greenwald