Max Blumenthal passes on word “several gay blogs revealed late yesterday” that Marine Reserve Corporal Matt Sanchez, winner of the Jeanne Kirpatrick Academic Freedom Award at this year’s CPAC, “was known during his halcyon days as Rod Majors, a majorly well-endowed gay porn star.” In his spare time, he was “a $200-an-hour male prostitute who advertised himself as an ‘excellent top.’”

Assuming this is true (frankly, this is one time I have no desire to click through the various links involved), it is rather funny. While John Hawkins is right to note that people can turn their lives around and that “conservatives should be proud to have a guy like Matt Sanchez attending CPAC,” somehow I don’t think he’d have been so prominently featured had his past been known.

Indeed, Michelle Malkin, a major Sanchez booster, observes, “Should CPAC organizers be embarrassed if the rumors about his alleged porn star past are true? Well, yes. Next time, they should do more extensive background research before handing out an honor with Jeane Kirkpatrick’s name on it.”

Don Surber calls Blumenthal out as a “homophobe” for his insinuation that gays can’t be conservatives. But, surely, Blumenthal is right that there is a faction of the conservative movement that “exploits anti-gay sentiment for political gain.” It’s not unreasonable to point that out.

Scandals, real or imagined, simply have more resonance when they go against type. And it’s not just conservatives who feel the sting of such hypocrisy. The recent flap over Al Gore’s ginormous, energy sucking mansion would not have made the news had he been a Republican booster of the oil industry. When anti-gay evangelical ministers turn out to be gay, that’s news. When Congressmen in charge of protecting kids from child molestation are having gay affairs with teenagers, that’s news.

UPDATE (August 13): Matt Sanchez has contacted me and acknowledges that he appeared in gay porn videos. He adamantly denies, however, that he was ever a male prostitute.

Max Blumenthal continues to stand by this story, having repeated the “male prostitute” assertion as recently as August 2.

OTB has no independent corroboration of this charge. We have contacted Blumenthal for comment.

UPDATE (August 14): Blumenthal responds,

He admitted it to Alan Colmes in a radio interview, said he wouldn’t deny it in his Salon piece, and advertised his services in a public web page that was recently taken down. He never denied it when I stated it as fact on Countdown with Keith Olbermann. Why is he denying it now? Possibly because he is the Weekly Standard’s only on the record source in its completely bogus attack on TNR’s Baghdad diarist, but who am i to ascribe motives?

My impression at the time was that Sanchez admitted to all charges. Michelle Malkin and others said as much contemporaneously and then approvingly linked to his Salon piece as evidence that liberalism is so bad that even gay porn star prostitutes get turned off.

Aside from issues of legality, I’m not sure what differentiates a porn actor from a prostitute, in that both are exchanging sex for money. Regardless, his former “summer job” is by all indications something Sanchez has left behind.

Conservatism treats humans as they are, as moral creatures possessing rational minds and capable of discerning right from wrong. There comes a time when we must speak out in the defense of the conservative movement, and make a stand for political civility. This is one of those times.

Ann Coulter used to serve the movement well. She was telegenic, intelligent, and witty. She was also fearless: saying provocative things to inspire deeper thought and cutting through the haze of competing information has its uses. But Coulter’s fearlessness has become an addiction to shock value. She draws attention to herself, rather than placing the spotlight on conservative ideas.

At the Conservative Political Action Conference in 2006, Coulter referred to Iranians as “ragheads.” She is one of the most prominent women in the conservative movement; for her to employ such reckless language reinforces the stereotype that conservatives are racists.

At CPAC 2007 Coulter decided to turn up the volume by referring to John Edwards, a former U.S. Senator and current Presidential candidate, as a “faggot.” Such offensive language–and the cavalier attitude that lies behind it–is intolerable to us. It may be tolerated on liberal websites but not at the nation’s premier conservative gathering.

The legendary conservative thinker Richard Weaver wrote a book entitled Ideas Have Consequences. Rush Limbaugh has said again and again that “words mean things.” Both phrases apply to Coulter’s awful remarks.

Coulter’s vicious word choice tells the world she care little about the feelings of a large group that often feels marginalized and despised. Her word choice forces conservatives to waste time defending themselves against charges of homophobia rather than advancing conservative ideas.

Within a day of Coulter’s remark John Edwards sent out a fundraising email that used Coulter’s words to raise money for his faltering campaign. She is helping those she claims to oppose. How does that advance any of the causes we hold dear?

Denouncing Coulter is not enough. After her “raghead” remark in 2006 she took some heat. Yet she did not grow and learn. We should have been more forceful. This year she used a gay slur. What is next? If Senator Barack Obama is the de facto Democratic Presidential nominee next year will Coulter feel free to use a racial slur? How does that help conservatism?

One of the points of CPAC is the opportunity it gives college students to meet other young conservatives and learn from our leaders. Unlike on their campuses—where they often feel alone—at CPAC they know they are part of a vibrant political movement. What example is set when one highlight of the conference is finding out what shocking phrase will emerge from Ann Coulter’s mouth? How can we teach young conservatives to fight for their principles with civility and respect when Ann Coulter is allowed to address the conference? Coulter’s invective is a sign of weak thinking and unprincipled politicking.

CPAC sponsors, the Age of Ann has passed. We, the undersigned, request that CPAC speaking invitations no longer be extended to Ann Coulter. Her words and attitude simply do too much damage.

Credentialed CPAC 2007 Bloggers

Sean Hackbarth, The American Mind
James Joyner, Outside the Beltway
Steve Verdon, Outside the Beltway
BoiFromTroy, Boi From Troy
Joy McCann, Little Miss Attila
Kevin McCullough, Musclehead Revolution
Fausta Werz, Fausta’s Blog
Patrick Hynes, Ankle Biting Pundits
Ed Morrissey, Captain’s Quarters
Jane Stewart, See Jane Mom
Alexander Brunk, Save the GOP
Mark Harris, Save the GOP
Ace, Ace of Spades HQ
John Tabin, JohnTabin.com

Other Right-of-Center Bloggers
N.Z. Bear, The Truth Laid Bear (CPAC Blogger of the Year)
Glenn Reynolds, InstaPundit
Joe Carter, Evangelical Outpost
Amy Ridenour, National Center Blog
Owen Robinson, Boots and Sabres
Michael Demmons, Gay Orbit
Mark Coffey, Decision ‘08
Russell Newquist, The Philosopher’s Stone
Marshall Manson, On Tap
Rob Port, Say Anything
Matthew Johnston, Going to the Mat
Timmer, The Daily Brief
Rick Moran, Right Wing Nuthouse
Dustin Gawrylow, Free Republicans
Dan, North Dallas Thirty
Brennan Monaco, The American Pundit
Nate Nelson, Reality Mugged Me
Christopher Fotos, PostWatch
Soren Dayton, EyeOn08
Greg, Rhymes with Right
Jimmie, The Sundries Shack
Dave Burris, First State Politics
Dan McLaughlin, Baseball Crank
Doug Welch, Stix Blog

UPDATE: Kevin McCullough has put together this video to accompany the letter:

The major candidates for the Republican nomination have criticized columnist Ann Coulter for controversial remarks she made at this year’s CPAC.

Three of the leading Republican presidential candidates on Saturday denounced one of their party’s best-known conservative commentators for using an antigay epithet when discussing a Democratic presidential contender at a gathering of conservatives here.

The remarks by Ann Coulter, an author who regularly speaks at conservative events, were sharply denounced by the candidates, Senator John McCain of Arizona, Rudolph W. Giuliani of New York and Mitt Romney of Massachusetts. Their statements came after Democrats, gay rights groups and bloggers raised a storm of protest over the remarks.

Speaking at the Conservative Political Action Conference before an overflow crowd on Friday, Ms. Coulter said, “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.”

[...]

Ms. Coulter, asked for a reaction to the Republican criticism, said in an e-mail message: “C’mon, it was a joke. I would never insult gays by suggesting that they are like John Edwards. That would be mean.”

Via Sean Hackbarth, here is the video of Coulter’s remarks:

This is a start. Still, simply criticizing particular remarks after the firestorm is hardly sufficient. It’s time for CPAC to quite embarrassing itself and the conservative movement by inviting this vile woman year after year.

The results of the CPAC 2007 Presidential Straw Poll:

• Mitt Romney 21%
• Rudy Giuliani 17%
• Sen. Sam Brownback 15%
• Newt Gingrich 14%
• Sen. John McCain 12%

Combining first and second choices:

• Rudy Giuliani 34%
• Newt Gingrich 30%
• Mitt Romney 30%

The Little Miss Attila poll, based on her perceptions of “the men’s speeches, aplomb in handling questions, and skill in courting the bloggers”:

• Giuliani
• Gingrich
• Romney
• Brownback

These three measures are equally valid bases for predicting the winner of the 2008 Republican nomination.

For example, if the contest is going to be decided by the number of college students that can be turned out with the promise of a free t-shirt and a pizza party, Brownback has a strong chance. If it’s based on a willingness to pretend that you read blogs, Romney is the definite frontrunner. And, if it’s based on being the only reason to give up a Saturday sitting around a cramped convention hotel surrounded by screaming teenagers, Gingrich can’t be discounted.

Governor Mitt Romney came by Bloggers Row after his CPAC speech and I got the chance to shake his hand and ask him a few questions.

His pitch, like that of most candidates, is very high level and platitudinous: Cut government spending, change the culture of Washington, increase efficiency, reach across the aisle, and so forth.

I asked him how exactly he planned to do these things. He said that he’d use the threat of the veto to force Congress to work with him. Asked what he would cut, he said he would have a commission look at efficiency cuts and that he’d peg non-defense discretionary spending at one percent below inflation and that doing this would save $300 billion over ten years. I noted that $30 billion a year amounts to a rounding error in the federal budget but he said it would add up.

Ultimately, Romney is quite polished and reasonably charismatic. Like the other major candidates–and unlike the man they’re seeking to succeed–he’s an excellent public speaker.

Thus far, though, he’s not willing to be pinned down on controversial public policy matters. I can’t say that I blame him.

Ann Coulter just finished her stand-up routine. I missed the first part of it, so I’m not sure what the dumbest thing she said was.

She needs to update her material, though, since she’s making Phil Donohue jokes. Hint: No one under 40 has any clue who he is. (The joke, in the form of an SAT question, was that Hillary Clinton is comparing herself to Margaret Thatcher. Coulter thinks the analogy would be Margaret Thatcher : Ronald Reagan as Hillary Clinton : Phil Donohue. No, it wasn’t any funnier in person.)

She closed, with no apparent transition, saying that since you now have to enter rehab for uttering the word “faggot,” she wouldn’t be talking about John Edwards. (No, I don’t get it, either.)

I skipped the Q&A, figuring I had the gist of the speech by that point.

UPDATE: I would note that, an hour after the speech, people are still lined up around the block for autographed copies of her book. Granted, most of them are young kids of college age. Some of them are older than I am.

Somehow, I can’t imagine Ronald Reagan being pleased.

UPDATE: Sean Hackbarth has the audio.

UPDATE: The remarks are being widely condemned by the conservative bloggers who covered CPAC. In addition to Hackbarth, who observed that “Ann Coulter almost made it through her CPAC speech without looking like a complete buffoon,” we have:

• Michelle Malkin dubs it “a cheap one-liner.”
• Ed Morrissey: “Yeah, that’s just what CPAC needs — an association with homophobia. Nice work, Ann.”
• Nathan Nelson (who wasn’t on Bloggers’ Row but is from Red State, which was) calls for all conservatives to “shun” Coulter.
• Patrick Ishmael calls the comment “way out of line.”
• Kevin McCullough: “Today at CPAC Ann needlessly painted a target not on herself, but on the Conservative movement as a whole.”
• Bryan Preston: “I’m no fan of John Edwards, but that’s just a stupid joke. It’s over the line. The laughter it generated across the room was more than a little annoying.” He’s got the video.

Then again, there’s SeeJaneMom:

That joke about John Edwards being a “faggot” without saying the word “faggot” is not helpful. True maybe. But not helpful.

The line snaking through Blogger’s Row would suggest that no one cares.

UPDATE: After two hundred folks bought her book for 27.95, she bolts on a line that has waited two hours. I should have bought the book before I went through my AMAZON portal. Rats.

Hmmm. Well, she did say the word “faggot.” Nor is there any reason to think Edwards, who is married with children, is homosexual. But, yes, ducking out on the line of autograph seekers was her major transgression of the afternoon.

Emperor Misha (who wasn’t, so far as I know, in attendance) manages to deliver Coulter’s barb in a way that’s actually funny: “There was absolutely NO reason to insult homosexuals like that, Ann. I know and have known quite a few gays in my life, and I have yet to meet one as effeminate as My Little Pony Edwards. Heck, I’ve yet to meet any women as effeminate as The Breck Girl.” (I’ve never found Edwards to be particularly “effeminate,” but it’s at least a funny joke.)

UPDATE: Joe Gandelman rounds up more reactions.

Former Virginia Governor Jim Gilmore came by to shake hands and I managed to talk to him one-on-one for a few minutes. His term preceded my having moved back to Virginia in 2002, so I mostly knew him from his time as RNC Chair and a few appearances on the Sunday shows. He was quite impressive.

What most impressed me about him is that he seems to have a very firm grasp of foreign policy issues, which I wasn’t expecting from someone with a domestic-focused political career. It turns out his undergraduate degree is in international relations and he served his first few years out of college as an Army intelligence officer. More importantly, I had forgotten his tenure as head of the Congressional Advisory Panel to Assess Domestic Capabilities for Terrorism Involving Weapons of Mass Destruction, aka the “Gilmore Commission.”

I asked him about how he would approach breaking out of the pack of the second tier candidates, many of whom have genuine conservative credentials, and establish himself as the “conservative alternative” to the Big Three. He said that they’re raising a lot of money, to be sure, but they’re having to spend it to convince people they’re something they’re not, while all he had to do is tell people who his is. He thinks that’ll be cheaper.

I rather like Sam Brownback but don’t consider him a plausible presidential candidate. I find Mitt Romney rather smarmy and opportunistic, even by politician standards.

Until arriving at CPAC, though, I had no ill feelings about either of them. After two days of barely being able to walk around the convention center without some idiot teenager in a t-shirt shouting at me or hitting me with a poster, invariably imploring me to vote for either Brownback or Romney, though, I would sooner vote for Ralph Nader than either of those men.

So far, however, I have refrained from violence. So far.

Newt Gingrich visited Bloggers Row this morning. Unfortunately, I had another commitment and missed him. Michelle Malkin has a photo and quick synopsis of the visit.

A few photos from the first day of CPAC 2007:

Bloggers Mary Katharine Ham, Ed Morrissey (obscured), Robert Bluey, and Jack Yoest.

Bloggers Philip Klein, Moe Lane, Erick Ericson, and Senator Mitch McConnell

Flipper, who has been running around quietly reminding people that Mitt Romney has been inconsistent in his political positioning over the years. No word on who is sponsoring him and whether they are also the ones who have distributed the Mitt Romney Flip Flops.

Photos courtesy Robert Bluey and Kristina Grabosky

Robert Stacy McCain highlights the role CPAC 1997 played in “one of the major journalism scandals of the 1990s, when Stephen Glass of the New Republic was discovered to have fictionalized several articles he wrote for that magazine.”

The CPAC bloggers have been invited to a “Cocktail Reception / Free Food” wherein we can, “Get face time with a Presidential candidate to discuss [our] shared conservative ideas and principles!”

Who is this generous candidate, you might ask? Rudy Giuliani? Mitt Romney? Sam Brownback? Susan Ducey?

Sadly, not a candidate of that status. It’s John Cox … the only real Conservative running for President.

Still, it’s free food. Then again, I’m 41 years old and can afford to buy my own food. Plus, it’s “immediately following the Presidential Dinner (around 9:30 p.m.)” so I wouldn’t be hungry, anyway.

Michelle Malkin has joined us on Blogger’s Row. Her fan base is now stopping by for photo ops.

Her Hot Air colleague Bryan Preston is with her but is drawing no more fanboy interest than the rest of us.

Jon Henke arranged for a few of us to briefly meet with Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell after his address at CPAC.

He declined bait to take shots at Harry Reid. Indeed, he was quite gracious in pointing out what a hard job his counterpart has, trying to pass legislation with only 51 votes (50, with Tim Johnson in the hospital) in a body where you need 60 to get anything controversial through. He is quite proud, though, to have managed thus far to keep at least 40 of his 49 votes together at all times and thus preventing “any bad bills from hitting the president’s desk.”

Moreover, there seems to be a renewed vigor among Republican activists, who are suddenly “reminded what it’s like to have a Democratic Congress.” (Given his graciousness with his time, I declined to point out that they still might not know if his colleagues hadn’t done such a good job of imitating a Democratic Congress over the previous several years.) Certainly, though, it’s easier to make points with the base in opposition rather than when having to take responsibility for compromise legislation.

UPDATE: Moe Lane vigorously denies having baited the good Senator. He includes a picture of yours truly standing with his hands in his pockets listening to poor McConnell being shamelessly baited.

UPDATE: I would call to the attention of Mr. Lane’s colleague, Erick Ericson, the relative proximity of Georgia and Northern Virginia to the Bahamas.

Veteran conservative strategist Richard Viguerie stopped by after his CPAC speech and talked to
the assembled bloggers. He has made no secret of his disgust with the current crop of Republican presidential candidates and is urging conservatives to withhold their support from all of the Big Three.

The Politico’s Jonathan Martin asked him several questions, mostly trying to get at which of the Big Three Viguerie would support if forced to choose but he wasn’t biting. He feels that none of those guys will appeal to conservatives, which means they’ll ultimately loose come November 2008 because the Democratic “third front” (he named civil rights groups, labor, the gay lobby, and others) will be out in force for their nominee.

When Martin asked him about potential late entries, he got a smile when he mentioned Newt Gingrich. Viguerie thinks Gingrich has the ability to join the race in the fall and knock everyone’s socks off. I asked about Gingrich’s “rather substantial personal baggage” and got a laugh. He noted that all the candidates except the Mormon have been married multiple times and that “the law is that somebody has to win it.”