[jraven]

She's way off the deep end and, it's true, using the SAME demonization tactics she decries in liberals. So she pleases those who agree with her but if anyone is wavering she turns them off. I would think liberals would WANT to have her appear since she loses converts to conservatism who are not into the same kind of demonization that liberals do to conservatives. Her credibility goes down each day. I read and enjoyed her book -- but I think it has been downhill from there. What if someone a liberal columnist had jokingly said he only wished McVeigh could have blown up Fox News instead or the Weekly Standard instead. It's ironic because Slander is a great title and, for a lot of it, a great book -- but it's the pot calling the kettle black. She uses the same tactics as those she critizes. And I am a FAN of Sean Hannity, Micheal Savage, etc. The fact many conservatives defend her scorched earth style would I assume mean that these same folks think it's fine when James Carville & Crew do the same thing. You can't take the high moral ground if your crawling in the gutter with those who are already in the gutter.

[joesbucks]

Couldn't have been better said. Ann is to conservatives what Begala and Carvile are to liberals in terms of public appearance. They are red meat people......and truly are just mirrors of each other.

[independentmind]

She's way off the deep end and, it's true, using the SAME demonization tactics she decries in liberals. So she pleases those who agree with her but if anyone is wavering she turns them off. I would think liberals would WANT to have her appear since she loses converts to conservatism who are not into the same kind of demonization that liberals do to conservatives.

Bravo. At last someone gets it. Why do you think that the mainstream press only features bellicose conservatives? Most conservative pundits appear to be caricatures of the real thing.

She uses the same tactics as those she critizes. And I am a FAN of Sean Hannity, Micheal Savage, etc. The fact many conservatives defend her scorched earth style would I assume mean that these same folks think it's fine when James Carville & Crew do the same thing. You can't take the high moral ground if your crawling in the gutter with those who are already in the gutter.

Yes , but she looks sooo goood in all of the glam shots which are plastered all over FR. I wonder what she was thinking when she posed for them.

[bobsatwork]

"...using the SAME demonization tactics she decries in liberals..."
No, she doesn't use "the same" tactics. You know this if you actually read her book. She uses invective when it fits the actions of her subjects / targets (EG: Whitman acted stupid when patted down a Black man for the cameras - Coulter calls her a birdbrain for it). Also, she has no complaint about name calling when it is in the realm of punditry (you can call her anything you want). What she decries is invective used by leaders, and the mainstream media, unrelated to any action of the subject (EG: Being called racist for wanting a tax cut).

[onedoug]

She uses the same tactics as those she critizes.

Except she sustains them by substance.

[sweetliberty]

"The fact many conservatives defend her scorched earth style would I assume mean that these same folks think it's fine when James Carville & Crew do the same thing."

If you're speaking English to someone who only understands German, you can talk until you're blue in the face and you will not make yourself understood. Communication requires a common language. Ann speaks the language of liberals. They may not like it, but they get it.

[Jumper]

In war, killing is appropriate even if one finds it distasteful.

The Clinton's brought war to politics in America by misappropriating power, and it became fashionable. The Liberals have already declared war and Ann is defending the ideals of a society under siege.

To paraphrase a great quote from another generation, "And they came for the gypsies, then it was the Jews, then it was the... and when they came for me there was no body left" - so, I am assuming that you are on this type list and of the same mindset as all those individuals who failed to stand together and then allowed a society such as Germany’s between the 1932 and 1945 to be purged of VOCIAL dissent, while the VOCIAL dissent that was distasteful from a government or political party which you inherently feared was destroying everything good and decent - for Germany those people who held that power was the National Socialist Party....

At least Ann is allowed to speak out with a dry wit, an ironic sense of both humor and duty, and with truth’s exposure mired in the lines so eloquently blunt.

[BlazingArizona]

Her credibility goes down each day.

On the contrary: her willingness to speak her mind in that wondrously satirical way is winning us new converts every day. Not since PJ O'Rourke first graced paper has a conservative essayist attracted so much public attention. One of her is worth more than a whole country club full of old-dude Republicans.

I'm most proud to have someone like Ann on our side.

[YoungKentuckyConservative]

And I am a FAN of Sean Hannity, Micheal Savage, etc.

How can you refer to Ann's style as "scorched-Earth" like but be a fan of Michael Savage? I personally enjoy both but can't understand your connection considering your conviction.

[Brookhaven]

using the SAME demonization tactics she decries in liberals.

And thus turns the liberals into hypocrits for everyone to see. They decry Coulter's statements, and in the next breath make the same type of statements.

The typical person does get it. You can't condem someone for being blunt and savage in their attacks while being blunt and savage yourself.

There is also a need for people that speak plain and blunt language because it strips away the political cover soo many politicians like to hide behind. The reason liberals hate (and I will miss) Jesse Helms is because in the middle of debate he would get up and make a blunt, "unstatesman" like speech that zeroed in on the core issue.

[Sloth]

James Carvile et al don't do the same thing. They lie, Ann tells the truth. She does it in a flagrant, aggressive, nothing-left-to-the-imagination way. That's good, IMHO, we need some bomb-throwers on our side.

[willyboyishere]

Yes, it's true, Ann takes traditional Lib tactics and spits
it back in their faces. Remember, those faucets the Libs turned on were on for eight long years, running full-blast.
There is a lot of catching up to do, as Ann sees it, and she's trying to do it virtually alone, and in a position of
lonely defiance. But more than you might think are not only not turned off by her more intemperate remarks---they may in fact be energized and liberated by them. She's in combat mode, just as the Clintonistas were. Her problem is, she's just about the only one, which makes it easier for newspapers and other media to drop her selectively and paint her as an irresponsible loose cannon: there's simply not enough in it for them to defend her"on principle" especially when they're turning off some percentage of their offended readership. (And who really knows how many readers actually said they were "tired of hate"?)

[537 Votes]

She's way off the deep end and, it's true, using the SAME demonization tactics she decries in liberals.

Teddy Kennedy drove off a bridge and killed a woman passenger, and liberals still consider him a viable presidential candidate even today. George W. Bush was stopped for drunk driving because a cop noticed he was . . . driving too slow. And you know what liberals made of that.

I hardly think one can argue that Coulter and liberals use the SAME demonization tactics.

If liberals have any examples of the Bush family committing rape or sexual harrassment, do let us know. I'm serious, don't cover it up. Do let us know. We wouldn't want a pervert like that in the Oval Office, after all. Or should I say, another pervert like that.

[CaliforniaOkie]

You can't take the high moral ground if your crawling in the gutter with those who are already in the gutter.

BS.