1. BlueIndependent says

    Those caricatures are pretty funny.

    But in all seriousness, right or wrong on my part, I’m kind of settling into this opinion on the matter: She is a total attention hog that found a way to make money cheaply, so why bother calling her on everything? As has been pointed out here, she’ll just talk a mile a minute about 6000 things and emit 5999 falsehoods. I understand that total fallacies formulated out of ego for the intent of cashing in is shameless, under-handed and dishonest, but perhaps we denounce the ideas publicly while ignoring the person. People should chuckle at her absurdities and point out how stupid such arguments are. If you focus on her, it all about her and the spotlight. As she’s proven several times over, she could care less if you or I or anyone else is truly correct on an issue or arguement; She’ll just keep on keepin’ on because it makes her money. Do what Bill Clinton said: take on all political comers with enthusiasm and a happy-go-lucky demeanor; don’t be cowed because someone’s throwing heat your way, and go into anger mode in retaliation.

    My point is basically that her whole gig can’t last forever, because eventually the schtick (again, real or not) gets old. Heck there’s even a conservative blogger now that points out all her crap and is really questioning the good she serves her “party”. She literally is the boy who cried wolf, extant, in the flesh. The only difference is the boy didn’t get paid in greenbacks for his mockery or others. I think if there were a liberal woman that said things that conservatives (whatever those are anymore) found incendiary, they’d get more attention akin to that which AC engenders with her “party”. But then that’d just be copying them and stooping to their level.

    Perhaps the best strategy is to question her credibility on everything she tries to go after. After all, what can a former lawyer (a dishonest one to be sure) possibly know about evolution? Why is she a self-hating female? How can she possibly question liberalism if she’s never lived it? Why should anyone take her seriously if she’s doing this for money? How can she possibly fact-check anything if she’s a polemic mill that puts out a book a year? Why does she insist on perpetuating the dumb-blond stereotype?

    Conservatives love using credibility as a “tool” of debate. Throw the wrench right back in their face so they get a nice big red public bruise from eyesocket to jawbone.

  2. idlemind says

    My point is basically that her whole gig can’t last forever, because eventually the schtick (again, real or not) gets old.

    Eventually, we all get old, and die. I for one don’t want to wait for one our our demises to be rid of Coulter.

    There have always been conservatives who object to her screeds. As you note, she’s deliberately out on the fringe. But that’s how the right-wing noise machine works: the Limbaughs and Coulters establish the right pole that makes mere moderates look like lefties. When our media goes on its lazy search for “both sides,” they aren’t going to go to Coulter, but they’ll happily find someone with only slightly less extreme views to represent “that side.”

  3. Mr Ash says

    I have to wonder why Coulter even mentioned the peppered moth, if as Dembski claims, she accepts the ability of evolution and natural selection to explain changes in gene frequency. Well, I don’t really wonder, as I have a low opinion of both of them

  4. says

    Plagerized? How do you plagerize lies?

    Too funny!

    BTW, Wild Bill Dembski, how’s your WIFE? You know–the woman who is not Ann Coulter that you should be paying more attention to? Buy her some flowers or something. Yeah, the dude’s married, everyone (I confess that I checked), although the way he’s been acting lately, you’d think Coulter was his wife.