Forgive me for pointing out that the context of the argument is that of a polemic: an ATTACK or refutation of the liberal doctrine of infallibility. I suppose you make the point that "personal attacks" are beyond the pale in any argument, but I'll submit that point is irrational given that the whole point of her book is to attack personally and objectively the liberal position.
Sadly, the irrationality of your point continues in the banal citings of anecdotal evidence that the book (What we do need to worry about is the perceptions of those who are apolitical -- the 40% of the population that doesn't follow politics, yet votes.) will offend others we need to convert. Again, this is not the point of her book. AC does not engage in public relations in any of her writings. She is indeed "preaching to the choir" and to anyone else who understands the language of political debate "ain't beanbag". I'll guess that those who are offended by her wouldn't read her anyway, and for those we have the fine work of Michael Medved, Hugh Hewitt, Prager, et. al., to convert them.
In an earlier post I used the word "meretricious" to describe the activities (from the Latin: [Latin meretrcius, of prostitutes). The usage of this word is a high-falutin' way of comparing the "jg's" activity to prostitutes plying their trade. The usage is shocking, but nonetheless you agreed with me above.
AC is attacking the left; she is not attacking "civility of discourse", etc. (which you may have noticed is not a particular concern of the left in their rhetoric). I think we are all in agreement here that we are mostly like-minded in our passion for the cause of conservatism. Your point is made that you are offended by her words. My point is that while it may be true that you are offended, the targets of her words have been gravely injured by her "vitriolic barbs." The evidence of the effectiveness of her attack grows every day.
If her goal is to sell books by preaching to the choir, she's succeeding. But that makes her just a salesperson, not anyone whose opinions matter.
My point is that while it may be true that you are offended, the targets of her words have been gravely injured by her "vitriolic barbs."
I think that's the real core of our disagreement. I think the targets of her barbs generally love it. They get free, sympathetic publicity as martyrs created by Ann. And anyone who subsequently launches a more reasonable attack on the targets of her barbs gets lumped together with Ann.
The evidence of the effectiveness of her attack grows every day.
I must have missed that. I think you equate "effectiveness" with "publicity". Michael Moore got an awful lot of publicity for his "side", and was the epitome of preaching to the converted. Yet I'd bet that he alienated a lot more people than he ever persuaded, pushed his party farther to the left, and ended up having a net negative effect for liberals in the 2004 election. He became the poster child for what voters would see if they elected Kerry, and I'm guessing a lot of them didn't like that.
That's Ann in a nutshell. Even if she's right, the manner in which she chooses to make her point makes her "effective", but not in the way we'd prefer. She the boogeyman for the left.