Not exactly. I think her criticisms of these particular widows have some validity, although I also think that we would not see anything wrong with it if these widows were conservative and had supported Bush instead of Kerry. I need to do some more thinking about this since I am not comfortable with the philosophy, "It's ok for me to do this, but not for you." However her particular mode of attack was morally wrong.
She does not always say the exact truth in her books and statements. We have reviewed every word and we found some things that we don't believe are true. Therefore, anything she says should not be considered.
Again, not exactly true. She definitely doesn't stick to the exact truth, it's not interesting enough. But throwing out anything she might say because of this is committing a fallacy known as "poisoning the well." If her ideas come up for discussion they should be discussed on their own merits.
She is so mean that we as conservatives think that she does not do the conservative message a service by speaking about them. Since she is a net-negative, better to fight all of those who support her, regardless of the bigger points she is making.
Guess what--not exactly true! I do think she's not doing conservativism any favors, but I don't see the sense in fighting all who support her (how dramatic!) But occasionally I get sucked in. ;-)
Regarding the rest of her book, I've only read snippets so far. I think chiefly it is overblown. Her decision to make anti-evolutionism a requirement for conservativism was a mistake, and her one-sentence attempt to soften that failed. She seems like she's trying to make the left into this single-minded conspiracy, and I don't think that is really warranted. People are nowhere near that organized!
I guess I will have to buy her book soon. I haven't read any excerpts about what she is saying about evolution.
I am not a creationist, however I do believe that evolution requires leaps of faith similar to religion. Whether or not you believe evolution to be the best theory or not, it is still a theory, and requires us to be making best guesses to complete the theory. The scientist in me thinks that Evolution should be highly considered, but I do not agree that closing the debate as liberalism seems to require is correct. In this, I see the religion in the requirement for complete consensus. Let other theories arise, and better yet, perhaps decide not to decide yet.
Richard Feynman, one of my personal heros, had a great view of uncertainty. He said:
"I don't have to know an answer. I don't feel frightened by not knowing things; by being lost in a mysterious universe without any purpose— which is the way it really is, as far as I can tell, possibly. It doesn't frighten me."