"In this case, I think conservatives jumped to condemn Coulter's words (rightly, in my opinion) even before there was an outcry from the left."
Why do you think her words were wrong?
"Okay, so it is great for Coulter to say this at CPAC, but wouldn't even meet the standards for posting on FR:
"Please enjoy our forum, but also please remember to use common courtesy when posting and refrain from posting personal attacks, profanity, vulgarity, threats, racial or religious bigotry, or any other materials offensive or otherwise inappropriate for a conservative family audience.
So do you really mean any of this stuff, or is it just put up there to cover yourself?"
Again, you make comments without stating your reason or logic. Is your opinion more important than objectively looking at the total picture?
You seem to want everything to fit into your perfect world. You and others should not condemn Ann Coulter's words, but you can certainly disagree with them, and should give your reasons for doing so.
Conservatives should be able to discuss and defend their principles with reason and logic. Ann is very capable of explaining her reasoning, and if people listen and understand they would see the positive logical thoughts behind her comments. I disagree that she has an uncivil tongue. I find her very thought provoking, but others react emotionally without comprehending what is really being said. People can still disagree with her even if they have no rational logic to support their disagreement.
Live in the real world, and change it as a leader by doing the right things.
"Why do you think her words were wrong?" Because they were a personal attack -- they had no relevance to Edward's policies.
"Again, you make comments without stating your reason or logic. Is your opinion more important than objectively looking at the total picture?" I am looking at this objectively. Jim Robinson has a higher standard for decorum on Free Republic -- or at least that is the disclaimer on his site -- than he has for Ann Coulter at a CPAC convention. (We're not talking about a backyard BBQ. We're talking about a public forum where our prospective presidential nominees are being featured.)
"You seem to want everything to fit into your perfect world. You and others should not condemn Ann Coulter's words, but you can certainly disagree with them, and should give your reasons for doing so." Why can't I condemn them? If I think they are incendiary, I can condemn them, just as anyone can. "To disagree" suggests there is a debate about the subject matter -- as if we are debating whether or not Edwards is a "faggot." To condemn is to say this isn't a matter of disagreement -- "faggot", in this context, is an crude word which should be condemned as a part of public discourse.
"Ann is very capable of explaining her reasoning, and if people listen and understand they would see the positive logical thoughts behind her comments. I disagree that she has an uncivil tongue. I find her very thought provoking, but others react emotionally without comprehending what is really being said." We are all well aware of Ann's "logical thoughts". Yes, we are all well aware that this was a commentary on political correctness -- which could have easily been made without taking a personal shot at Edwards. Amazing the kinds of words you can pass off under the guise of "logical thought." If you don't consider words like "raghead", "faggot", "harpies" etc. to be uncivil, that is entirely your right. I'm sure the teachers must love the colorful language of your kids.
My standards, and it seems the standards of most of the conservative pundits on this issue, are a bit higher on what is considered "civil".