=== Ann knows as much or more about the constitution as any other "constitutionalist" pundit on TV or in any major paper
Isn't it odd how she's mum when most we need a constitutional scholar or two to pipe up with something more substantive than: "You must vote for Bush no matter what he does."
But I guess, as this defense of hypocrite swingers and sex profiteers proves, she's got better things to do.
=== =c) Gannon's questions were no more idiotic or editorialist than any other lame WH press reporter's. Only his slanted right, not left.
I appreciate this comment very much. Many seem to believe there is some difference between right and left. As Ann argues herein, we're absolutely entitled to avail ourselves of their peculiar brand of hypocrisy.
Quite frankly, as offputting as I find MOST White House Press Corps (I was there to protest them for two years with the DC Chapter ... it was like watching freaks from some Fellini film trail in), I still think Gannon's questions set the standard for unprofessionalism.
The fact he was a "favorite" of the Administration's press rep and is being defended by Coulter speaks volumes.
As we "stoop to conquer" by adopting the left's losing tactics (per instruction from the "former radical" but still atheist pro-abort Whoreowitz), we might want to give some thought to who, exactly, is being conquered here.
I don't care how sexy (MORE PICS PLEASE) is the Coulter blade, I hate to see folks falling on it.
If you have read Coulter, which you say you have, then you will realize that she is 10 shades more conservative than any other writer/pundit out there. I cannot think of one issue on which she does not hold a far right (and I mean that as a compliment) opinion. You may not like her looks or her rhetorical style, but a quisling she ain't.
There are very few as conservative as me, but she is one.
That is not a fact. That's a talking point but is not a fact.