Reality check: We wouldn't be having this national conversation about how the left hides behind their victims to insulate their arguments if Ann hadn't made the argument controversially. They haven't bothered with any other part of her book because they think they can attack her for her harshness in this one area. However, by doing so, they are making her point for her and it has gotten far more exposure than if she had been all sweetness and light about it.
You can not like her style but the results speak for themselves. The left would ignore her if they could.
Oh spare me! I get her. You're the one double-talking. A few posts ago, the term "harpy" was attacking the messenger. Then, when I pointed out that was Ann's tactic, suddenly it becomes a valid part of the argument.
Of course I have seen bile from the left. I am an adult and I understand that you don't need to counter bile with more bile.
You want a reality check? There is no "national conversation" about how the left hides behind their victims. There is an orgy among people on rightwing sites like this one who are giddy about being spoon-fed their ration of red meat. Meanwhile, there is an orgy on the leftwings sites about how "the right" was once again "exposed" as a bunch of meanies, thus validating the "human shield" "strategerie". If you think the apolitical people -- the ones whose votes we are trying to win -- are sitting around discussing the sneaky tactics of the left, you are deluding yourself. At worst, they see Ann Coulter as that leggy blonde that said mean things about the 9/11 widows. At best, they have mercifully forgotten all about the whole issue when news of Zarqawi broke. God willing, that is what happened.