I find Coulter's writing slightly Dowdish/childish, even if I agree with it, unfortunately. You're right, she needs to polish it, but I don't really know if she needs to sharpen it any more. I also don't find her funny at all. *shrug*. Sorry to disappoint. I just don't see the kind of class in Coulter that I do in Reagan. Coulter is a product of the Clinton Era; hate-filled, vicious, a veritable pit viper. I might want her as a lawyer, but not as the "cultural representative" of my party. Noonan is a product of the Reagan Era -- optimism in the American dream, great vision, the power of the individual...I'll take the filet mignon and skip the spamburgers, thanks. Hehe.
Oh, puh-leaze...
I've watched Ann Coulter every chance I've had, and read all her books. I've not seen a shred of "hate" in her, and no hint of being a "viper". What you're mistaking for "hate" is actually derisive *SCORN*.
And lord knows the current generation of liberals deserve all the scorn they can get.
As for "vicious", that too is off base. She's fierce in defending what she knows is right, and rooting out what she knows is wrong.
I like my filet mignon with a bit of horseradish--the hottest I can find.
Ann's writing is the horseradish that heats the tongue and blood and transforms the conservative message from a fine meal into an unforgettable experience.
I enjoy Noonan honey too. Each in its place; each in its own time.
Coulter and Noonan say the same things, but Coulter has more of a blue-collar, in-your-face, comedic value to her writing.
I think she's a much better writer than Maureen Dowd.