Thank you for asking so politely about my opinion. I appreciate the good manners.
There are a couple of things that Ann does when she's writing that I find a bit juvenile.
Now, that's just me and many, many are going to disagree. However, I think if more people were actually analyzing her stuff honestly, they might feel the same way.
First of all I think this type of sarcasm is a bit childish. It might be okay every now and then, but she will use this technique several times in each article....
It's not as if the Democrats have behaved outrageously for the past four years using their minority status to block Bush's nominees. Oh wait – no, I have that wrong.
This stuff runs me nuts. She repeats that same "technique" in the very next paragraph. Then she skips a paragraph and then does it again. It's done several more times.
I don't think that takes much creativity and I think she's got more intelligence than that.
This sentence is a bit silly to me also....
The Senate majority leader, Bill Frist, thought the party with the most votes should be able to win. (Boy – talk about out of touch! And this guy wants to be president?)
She writes lots of silly stuff like this.
It's much like my daughter used to write a couple of years ago. It's BLOG type stuff, not the stuff of a "major" columnist.
I guess that's it mainly. Most of the time it sound like a Blog written by some "valley girl" or something. It's like 'Duh", sort of stuff.
Not the way I would expect a nationally syndicated columist and Constitutional lawyer to write.
Does that make sense?
Finally, she's EXTREMELY repetitious. She doesn't come to the point. She will ramble all around it her point, rephrasing the same thing over and over (and over) again.
To me, a good columnist will make a point, explain it and then sum it up. Really good ones will teach us something.
Ann writes for her fans. She doesn't appeal to people who aren't rabid (rules, man, Rules) fans and she is so abrasive that she turns off many people who aren't political junkies.
I know the routine, (so while I don't expect you to do it since you asked a sincere question that was respectful), I expect many comments about how I must be jealous of Ann, etc.
Sadly it happens anytime I don't bow to Ann. I'm not remotely jealous but some freepers will drag it on for days, posting nastiness to me.
Like I said you don't appear to be that type and seem to be accepting of the fact that I can hold a different opinion.
In addition to "jealousy" type comments, I will also get plenty of "liberal" comments. I even got called a "commie" the other day.
If I don't get those kind of comments on this thread, it will mostly be because I said I am expecting them. That tends to be a bit of deterent, just to "prove me wrong".
This thread was from last week......Ann Coulter pics from Craig Ferguson's Late, Late Show
I made a comment at post 14. At post 286 I was STILL being flamed for it.
It's not that I have a problem with her being a smart ass....I can be as big of a smart ass as the next person. But I'm not supposed to be some sort of "conservative icon".
Oops, this is very long. Sorry, I'll bet you wished you had never asked!
Great photos but I don't agree with your take on Ann.
I strongly disagree- it is EXACTLY that that I love about her articles. As Rush said "illustrating absurdity by being absurd"
"First of all I think this type of sarcasm is a bit childish. It might be okay every now and then, but she will use this technique several times in each article....
It's not as if the Democrats have behaved outrageously for the past four years using their minority status to block Bush's nominees. Oh wait – no, I have that wrong.
This stuff runs me nuts. She repeats that same 'technique' in the very next paragraph. Then she skips a paragraph and then does it again. It's done several more times."
- texasflower
Sorry, I guess I have missed your editorials and your best selling books.
It is that brilliant use of sarcasm and wit that has brought Ann to where she is today. She brings to the forefront and highlights liberal hypocrisy in a way that few others can. Hence, her soaring popularity.
Liberals fear her style because it illustrates the constant contradictions in their "arguments". She comes after them in a way that reveals their lack of conviction, and, to me, her disdain of them in their presence reflects many of my own "feelings" towards these shallow pretenders.
Her "consistency" is what many of her readers look forward to!
Her books are done in pretty much the same fashion... she's no William Manchester.
Her forte is debate... one-on-one. She can give conservative argument with some of the brashness of a young William F. Buckley... a commodity sadly lacking in todays Republican Party.
Coulter is a 'diamond-in-the-rough'... that deserves our appreciation.
Yes. I love Ann, but her style, while fun to read msot times, is not the stuff that is going to make people reconsider their positions.