Some guy who writes for Advertising Age named Simon Dumenco wishes death to Godless (buy it here) author Ann Coulter for being "rabidly hateful" and "sub-human." Pot. Kettle. Black. Coulter has made some pretty callous, irresponsible, and indefensible statements too. Perhaps Ann and her enemies share traits that neither is willing to admit. But before drawing too many parallels between Coulter and her enemies, one should take into consideration a key difference: Coulter's more outlandish quotes seem contrived, written or said for the purpose of eliciting controversy. Coulter's critics' more outlandish statements about her seem in reaction, written or said in emotional haste. Whether it's more defensible to say such things while in control or while out of control, is for others to debate.

Your remarks are spot on, Dan.

I think what disappoints me most about Ann, and why I don't find myself flocking to her defense by pointing out all the libs who are saying equally outrageous things about her, is that as a conservative, she knows better and should comport herself better.

Ronald Reagan would not descend to the gutter rhetoric that Coulter does, neither would many a good conservative. I suppose every "movement" and school of ideological thought is going to have its Coulters, and maybe on some level that is needed for the marketplace that is political thought. But really, I think it's sad commentary that Coulter so willingly whores herself out for controversy rather than effectively communicate in a way that is controversial but substantial and unassailable on the grounds of good taste.

I have to disagree, to attribute statements made by the left about Coulter, or anyone on the right for that matter, as being done in emotional haste, is patronizing.

Either their character allows them to say such things or it doesn't.

What excuse then could be made for the names Michele Malkin is called by the same people?
Here's a quote from one of the links.

"Malkin accused liberals of hypocrisy over the matter, however. "I'll show you 100 liberal hate mails and blog posts referring to me as a 'gook' or a 'chink' or a 'filipina whore' for every one 'raghead' controversy on the right."

Whatever you think of Coulter, she is honest. I saw an interview where the reporter asked if she was on a mission, she replied, "no, she was out to sell books"

Just breaking all over the blogosphere is news that Coulter may have plagiarized parts of her new book.
http://rudepundit.blogspot.com/2006/06/because-some-things-are-more-profane.html

I agree Ann Coulter's statements regarding Justice Stevens and the Iranians were indeed irresponsible and indefensible (also, as Iranians are not technichally Arabs, using the term "ragheads" was inaccurate as well!). However, while her comments concerning the Jersey Girls may on the surface appear callous, this little fracas epitomizes the old adage about people who can't stand the heat staying out of the kitchen. In the course of their brief but well-publicized involvement in politics, the Girls have never hestitated to engage in personal attacks, highly inflammatory rhetoric and baseless assertions.

Why then is it unreasonable for others to question their motivations? More importantly, does the acerbity of Coulter's verbiage and wit make her assertions any less accurate?

Coulter is typically factual and accurate and presents a common sense approach to conservatism. But, ultimately, it ends up being her 'in your face', hard edged presentation that gets peoples' attention.

This is contrived and deliberately used for shock value and it is certainly working.

Love her or hate her, you know she's there.

i love the woman. she does'nt just sit there and take like most conservatives, she fights fire with fire. and thats why the libs. hate her. ann , here is that worn out phrase, U go GIRL! kick some more ass!

I read her weekly columns and they often make me chuckle. I tried reading one of her books and found it just unbearable though, her style is better left to the form of a column.

As far as taking a stand for or against the outrageous comments she makes, etc., I would only say that she is pretty vulgar, and although any of us can fall into that in moments of passion, it is still not a very mature mode of discourse. The ultimate problem that I have with her is that b/c of her mouth she is rather trashy, and I find that very un-lady-like.

She also takes advantage of the fact that people are attracted to her looks and tend to listen to her and read her more readily because of it. I think also that this helps her get a pass on the content and presentation of her opinions.

Kudos to all!Good post and good comments. Am I close to right in thinking that all of this is a response to the most harmful and hateful comments coming out of the Democrats starting about ten years ago?