[Cicero]

As Brendan Nyhan, the media critic, has documented, her flights of fancy go back a long way. No punches are pulled. Ted Kennedy is an “adulterous drunk”. President Clinton had “crack pipes on the White House Christmas tree”. You get the idea.

Why is it extremist to report the facts?

[dogbyte12]

Shorthand can be dangerous. You want to call Bill Clinton an adulterous man fine. But so is Henry Hyde and Newt Gingrich. You want to call Ted Kennedy a drunk, but then so was Joe McCarthy.

Shorthand insults do not elevate the discussion. I oppose policies, not personalities. Unless one believes that Jimmy Carter should be running things due to his strong personal character, I really think we need to get off the politics of personal destruction, because we are going to get some really lame Carter like people running the world.

How about socialism is wrong. Affirmative action is wrong. Even if I have smoked a joint, cheated, swore or did anything else improper, it does not change the fact that socialism is wrong. If you have lived as pure as the driven snow, but still advocate bad policy, you are still wrong.

That is my point I guess. Coulter goes for the zingers instinctually and it can become a battle of name calling. Those who want no change win in that battle. If people remember first that you called Kennedy an adulterous drunk, and remember no more, you have lost. If they know first that Kennedy is screwing up our educational system and trying to fiddle with health care, you win in the long run.

[lavrenti]

Radosh's complaints are one to take seriously, however Ann is one we need to push the rehtorical envelope.

Sullivan has his reasons to hold back. He's one known to be ready for a fight, but he is not one who hangs out with us masses. Coulter does--despite her background, she behaves more like a middle-class babe with a big-ass chip on her shoulder.

Those are the ones who do the ideological dirty work.