We are going to stop publishing Ann Coulter's column.

Coulter, as most of you know, is the conservative columnist we've published for about two years. She was in the news last week for her comment at the Conservative Political Action Conference, one of the most distinguished gatherings of conservative thinkers in the nation.

Here's exactly what 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."

Most of you will think that we're dropping her column in response to that comment. Some will undoubtedly believe that we're caving in to liberals, who have launched what appears to be a national campaign to get newspapers to dump Coulter's column. Others are probably praising us for finally seeing what's wrong with Coulter's column.

Whatever group you find yourself in, you're partially right.

Coulter's comment about Edwards had something to do with it. We're all for open discussion of the issues, but questioning someone's sexual orientation in such a vile way goes beyond reasonable comment. It should be noted that Coulter didn't - and wouldn't have been allowed to - make those comments in the Herald & Review. But it's still an indication of her thinking.

More importantly, at least in my mind, is that Coulter's column has become a one note symphony. Every column is about how liberals can't be believed, the New York Times is in bed with radical Muslims, the Washington Post is guilty of treason, etc. There are plenty of issues in this nation that should be discussed and we wish that Coulter would discuss more of them. Instead, her columns have become more and more frequently one issue rants.

Also, Coulter seems to adore the public spotlight a little too much, a trait she abhors in liberals. Her public comments have become more and more strident in order to gain more and more attention. Her comment about Edwards accomplished her purpose - it got her name in the news.

The decision for the Herald & Review was also based on balance. When Molly Ivins was alive she was a counter-balance to Coulter. Ivins wasn't as acid-tongued as Coulter, but she was close, especially when the issue involved the Bush family. Since Ivins death a few weeks ago, it's become more and more clear that there isn't the balance there once was.

I also don't think it's bad for a newspaper to switch columnists every once in a while. Even the best columnists can fall into a rut after a few years and it's always good to bring some fresh writing and different thinking to the opinion page.

The purpose of an opinion page, in my view, is to encourage people to think and discuss issues. No one should agree with every editorial, letter writer or columnist. It's a pretty boring world if we all agree. Opinions that challenge your own views can make you think and consider alternatives. We're not out to change anyone's mind, but to enlighten, entertain and offer a forum for discussion.

For that reason, we think that the newspaper should publish columns from as many perspectives as possible. We attempt to have a balance of liberal and conservative columnists.

In the final analysis, we decided that there were other columnists who could state the conservative case better than Ann Coulter. We have already started the search for a new columnist and, as always, we'd be interested in your suggestions.

You can send your column suggestions, or other comments, to Editor Gary Sawyer by adding a comment to the online version of this column, emailing him at gasawyer@herald-review.com or calling him at 421-6975.