So like I previously said, Coulter is a waste of a bad tan and an ugly face. Her "intellect" is centered around being a character. If not for her marketing as a blonde bombshell who happens to know a little about politics, she'd be nothing.

We've come full circle.

I wouldn't know. I don't really watch Fox News.

I've more-less switched back to CNN. Fox has become too much of an Anna Nicole Smith/that girl who disappeared in Aruba type channel. They'd rather make the news up, informing us as to the goings-on of the faux celebrity du jour than to actually broadcast anything substantial. Is Coulter on any network besides Fox?

I just find it laughable when people insinuate that Coulter isn't intelligent. The only reasons for this would be that A) like I mentioned, they can't understand the argument or B) the person viewing leans left. People always bitch about her being hateful, when usually she is simply being realistic. She does it in a humorous and rational way, and thats probably why she's so popular.

As for Fox News, it sucks. I have no idea what they report about in the absence of murder trials or celebrity deaths.

CNN is even worse. They give the news, sometimes. If you can handle an hour of Sanjay Gupta talking about some "this will change your life issue", you might get an idea of some things happening in the world. CNN is the cockiest of all of them I think, because you have leftist journalists like Cooper and Blitzer who view themselves as modern Edward R. Murrows. Wow, congrats guys, you devote most of your time to bashing the administration, what cutting edge journalism. Considering the average brain dead college freshman talks about the same things to his hippie friends, I really don't think you're breaking new ground.

And MSNBC, holy crap, where do I start. "Top political team of Chris Mathews and Keith Olbermann", are you kidding? The one advantage to MSNBC is that they don't really try to hide the fact that they're off-the-charts liberal. They also have Imus, and even though he's a Bush-hater too, he's good about bitch-slapping whiny liberals.

I've finally gotten to the point where I watch mostly CNBC. Yeah, its almost entirely financial news, but you'll get the jist of whats going on through programs and commentary which are on a higher intellectual level. Plus, if anything really important happens, they're on it like all the others.

"Intelligent" is an action word so just because someone tells you someone else is intelligent doesn't mean you have to believe it. There are plenty of nonintellects on every side of a debate so it isn't about viewpoint or just about Coulter. She's just who these GC threads keep popping up about. Plus, you can listen to and understand everything someone is saying and still think that person is not only wrong but a complete waste of brain matter.

Agreed.

"TV News" has become an oxymoron. The media in general is pretty pathetic in general these days.

The purpose of debate is to advocate a position against someone else advocating a contrary position. Part of the test of good advocacy is persuasiveness. One can have the best quips and the most memorable lines, but unless they are used to establish the superiority of one's own position over that of one's opponent -- what I am calling persuasiveness -- then the quips and lines are entertaining and may bring joy to the faithful, but they do not yield effective debate.

Perhaps I judge her effectiveness as a "debater" by the wrong standard. I'm a lawyer and her training is legal. My experience is in legal advocacy, where there is no winning without persuasion. Viewing Coulter's columns and speeches through that lens, while they may be entertaining, they are not good advocacy for her position. I wiould expect better from someone who edited the Law Review at Michigan.

We are in complete agreement here.

Exactly what I've said all along. Ann Coulter is a cheerleader -- and a very savvy one, at that -- not a real debater.

DST, do you think you could beat Coulter head to head in a debate over a popular political issue? If you stripped away the entertainment value and it was wit against wit and knowledge base v. knowledge base...Maybe you could, but I think you're allowing your personal views regarding her opinions and tactics to interfere with a judgment of her abilities.

Mystic, well as someone in advocacy of course you view things from a persuasive standpoint. However, I'm sure litigators encounter situations where despite having the best case and presentation, they jury rules the other way. I love the American people, but there are about 30-40% of them who will switch positions at the drop of a hat. Thus, they're not always a strong barometer regarding who wins a particular debate.

I don't debate politics. I debate social issues. She and I have two different career interests (and perhaps life goals) so I wouldn't be interested in familiarizing myself with the material and preparing for such a (boring) debate with her.

I have only made reference to her tactics and her ability to cloud the real issues. You don't know what my political opinions are and whether they differ from hers.

I have already said there were nonintellects on both sides of every debate. And that I'm only discussing her because everyone else keeps discussing her (and presenting her as some stunner who should be marveled). I don't know how much more impartial I can get than that.

Without question, as you'll experience firsthand. But in those cases, the jury reaches its decision in spite of rather than because of effective advocacy.

Perhaps I haven't been clear enough. When I talk about persuasiveness, I'm not talking about whether she or anyone else actually persuades a majority of the great unwashed. You're exactly right -- way too large a segment of the American public will switch views at the drop of the hat and think that People is a news magazine. I'm talking about viewing advocacy through a more objective standard -- sort of the "reasonable person" standard of the law. Would a reasonable person whom one is trying to sway to one's own position find her arguments persuasive. With her, as with Olbermann and others, I think the answer has to be "no."

But, as a cheerleader, that's not really what she's trying to accomplish.

I agree.

DST, alright. On a side note, simply saying you're impartial obviously doesn't make it so. I'm sure you realize this. People can infer your political ideology regardless of whether you put a label on it. Doesn't mean they'll be right, but they can surely make informed guesses.

Or said person has watched her debate or discuss a topic that isn't confined to cheap sound-bites... I believe there is still a thread floating around about her making a complete ass of herself on the CBC citing her extensive knowledge of politics and history - and yet claiming that Canada was in Vietnam along side the US:D

She is a political hack, and dare I say: a bigot (at least when it comes to those who disagree with her politics) - all she is good for nothing more than the cheap one off colour statement, since she can't seem to hold her own in any debate or discussion that goes for longer than 5 minutes - exactly the same as the "slogan shouters" on the left, except that for the most part they tend stay away from hatespeach.

You'd fall into category number 2.

Why how very Coulter-esque or MSNBC-Like in trying to dismiss the opinion of those who disagree by insisting that because of their political views, real or insinuatued, their opinions or observations are invalid. Why not actually elevate yourself above those hacks and actually debate or discuss the issue at hand without derailing any attempt to do so without using "your a liberal" or "your a conservative" partisan crap?

You know what, though? I'd pay money to see this. Or better yet, I'd pay money to see Julianne Malveaux debate Coulter, but somehow I doubt Malveaux would even take the time to turn up her nose at Coulter, never mind debate her in a public forum.

Because he, like so many GOP "pundits" are incapable of reasoned discourse and analysis. Or rather, they may be capable of it (I've not seen any evidence, but I'm willing to give the benefit of the doubt), but they're only interested in arguing at the level of your run-of-the-mill fourth grade bully. It's their modus operandi, and it has served them well thus far, because rather than dealing with political issues that can bring the country together, they're more interested in setting up (false) divisions between people who think/behave/love/worship "different". They're about dividing the country between "Us" and "Them", and not only are they interested in the division (which is logical), they're interested in playing up hierarchies and supremacies.

So to answer your question about why he can't just debate the issues, he can't help it. He's been bamboozled, hoodwinked, hornswaggled. He's been had. He's been took. And he can't see a way out of it for the blind distrust of anyone who isn't exactly like him.