Ann Coulter’s CPAC remark about Edwards was despicable—completely out of bounds for civil political discourse. Like Kathryn said, it’s not surprising coming from Coulter, but that doesn’t make it any more tolerable. But while I understand the liberal blogosphere’s outrage at Coulter, I’m not quite as moved by the way they’ve brought Romney into it. Romney made a quick quip about Coulter being a “moderate” and said that it was a “good thing” that she was speaking next. But I tend to think that calling attention to the next speaker/performer on a lineup is a formality that doesn’t necessarily indicate support. Bands, for example, do this all the time: Opening acts who detest the people and/or music of the headliners nonetheless rev up concert crowds by tossing out complimentary remarks. Political candidates are, in a lot of ways, performers, and CPAC has the D.C. political equivalent of concert-like energy, so it’s not surprising that Romney would follow similar conventions. Now, I don’t think it would be inappropriate for Romney’s people to issue a short statement disavowing Coulter’s remarks. They were spectacularly awful, and it can’t hurt to put some distance between her and the campaign and be done with the matter. But I also don’t think Romney really deserves to be slammed for sticking to the conventions of performance and briefly getting the crowd excited about the next person scheduled to go on stage.
Update: To clarify, I’m saying Romney needs to issue a statement here (I don’t think he has any particular obligation to do so), just that it might be an easy way to quickly move on. My main point is that if there is a fuss over this, it should be over Coulter, not Romney.