I actually have heard her debate and listened to her expansively......and I think she holds her own and does very well. People think she only insults because of what they have heard on TV or read in writeups. She is very well informed and extremely educated.

Isn't she from the north?

Once again, present an issue that Coulter projects and you don't agree with, and we'll have at it.

Ms. Coulter has said that anyone with a brain is either a conservative or a liberal, those who claim to be in the middle she referred as being "dumb as a toaster". I don't consider myself a conservative yet I'm far from being a liberal. I don't agree at all with the far left or the far right, I take a more moderate stance on things.

Funny you should mention that since, as a "green dog Democrat" (part yellow dog, part blue dog), I think Howard Dean is an embarassment to the Democratic Party and is one of the DNC's worst mistakes in recent memory. (And there have been quite a few to choose from.)

Coulter is a cheerleader. She can energize and entertain the faithful who already agree with her by saying what they want to say. But I still say that she is far more likely to turn others away from her style of conservatism than to convince others that she is right.

It may be great to hear someone speak without regard to people's feelings, but one better keep in mind that, in political discourse, that speech well may alienate the people one wants to convince.

She's a good entertainer. Nothing more, nothing less.

I want there to be a moderate ticket in '08. I would love to see Gen. Wesley Clark, Rudy Guilliani (spelling? sorry) and Mark Warner on the same ticket as Pres, VP and Sec. of State, in any order, I think would be great. But that would mean that voters would have to look at leadership qualities and personal atributes, and not just buy into something pre-packaged by some "steering commitee" or focus group or something, so it will never happen.

It sounds to me like you need to lighten up.


****In other news****


Ann Coulter writes her fantasy novel "Making Love in the GOP"

Regarding Coulter as a cheerleader, thats true. I don't really think she tries to get people to cross over, and obviously she's too harsh to do that well.

About her comments about people in the middle, I'm not sure exactly what comments you're referring to...however, my first reaction is that she's probably referring to swing voters, the ones that shift on a weekly/monthly basis. To that degree, I'd have to agree. While there is to some degree a valid swing vote, much of it sways with whichever station they've watched that day (be it CNN or Fox). I might very well be wrong about what she meant, but thats just what instantly came to mind...

Also, I'd like to throw in this great quote from her article today regarding democratic support for the war on terror...

"They oppose every bust of a terrorist cell, sneering that the cells in Lackawanna, New York City, Miami, Chicago and London weren't a real threat like, say, a nondenominational prayer before a high school football game. Now that's a threat."

I want Ann Coulter to actually GO to a church instead of talking about it.

This comming from the person who wished McVeigh bombed NY Times building instead of OKC.

Nobody should take her seriously, she's a good entertainer and its funner to watch her opponents and her supporters go at it.

Well, considering what the NY Times has done...........

See, I'm a "swing" voter in the sense that I will probably never declare a political party affiliation, and will always vote based on the candidate and the issues.

Most swing voters are like me, we have our opinions (that don't change with the breeze), but neither party agrees with us 100%. So we vote for moderates, or the best choice we have, but not always the same affiliation.

What is one to do who thinks that abortion is wrong, but probably can't be illegal until there is a way to prevent 99% of unplanned pregnancies and/or raise fetuses in an artificial womb of some sort AND I think the death penalty is wrong because a) innocent people die and b) it's too expensive and c) it's too good for them, let them rot.

There is no party out there for me. I'm more Libertarian than anything else, but as long as it is ineffectual to vote for one, I'm stuck

The death penalty is too expensive, yet life in prison is an efficient alternative? I have trouble seeing the reasoning here.

Politics shouldn't be a horse race - if would-be third party voters keep thinking this way, then there will never be an effective third party in America :( Gotta be optimistic!