[Lightnin]

The liberal gang is in a state of near panic over the astonishing success of Coulter's new book, still atop the NYT best-seller list.

If you haven't bought the book already, race out to your nearest bookseller and do so!

It's so much fun to see the lefties in such agony.

[FreedomPoster]

It's so much fun to see the lefties in such agony.

Worth-saying-again bump!

[UbIwerks]

They're nearly foaming at the mouth.

I remember one smear personally: Andy Hiller's pop quiz to then candidate Bush.

Who the hell knows that?

[marta R]

I started at Chapter 2, because Chapter 1 seemed to have been well-mined," says Limerick. "I learned only yesterday that AHC (Coulter) calls it her favorite."

Limerick cites nearly 50 places in the chapter where he feels Coulter erred or merely twisted facts to fit her theme

Limerick? First off claims he cites nearly 50 places where he "feels" coulter twisted the facts? That's liberal logic for you; forget reason and logic they feel their way to finding answers. Show me the footnotes!!

[maica]

This article seems to say that a lot of liberals are actually buying Ann's book because there are so many facts that they have to study! Good work, Ann! She has actually engaged some people in acknowledging that there can be a different viewpoint from theirs.

Conservatives can come out of the closet in many more arenas now!

[Movemout]

Even if she was lying her pretty little tail end off, and I am sure that she is not, then that would merely put her on a level playing field with the libs. She has generated enough foam from the left to extinguish an Oregon forest fire started by liberal policies. Kudos to Miss Coulter (I hope she would prefer Miss to Ms).

[Woahhs]

These people do nothing but prove Coulter's insight. The misleading title of the article promises a slam-dunk, we gotcha dead to rights, expose' of Anne Coulter's perfidity. Then it delivers absolutely NOTHING but the ranting of fools who can't distinguish fact errors from their own opinions.

Priceless!

[moyden]

A pride of lions.

A gaggle of geese.

A howling of liberals.

[William Terrell]

This is a really strange article. It claims that Ann's book is riddled with errors, too many to count. But all the author does is excerpt quotes from the book as if just seeing the language used is enough to prove it wrong. The closest to an error he gets is 70 references to civil rights marches instead of the Coulter claimed 100 and an article printed the next day instead of the day after.

This looks like just a fit on the floor to me.

[Publius6961]

"So over the top," laments Davis, a 30-something aspiring writer. "That anyone would take that seriously astounds me."

Keep your day job, loser.

Wait.
Why am I responding to this silly thread and giving it credibility?
Can I take this response back?

[Congressman Billybob]

I find clues to accuracy of sources in reading the lists of "experts" a particular source relies on. Here, the list includes "Joe Conason." Anyone who takes Conason seriously as a source of facts, rather than as a predictable flack for Clinton in particular, and the looney left in general, is a world-class fool.

A couple of times, we had a call-in from "Elwood in New Orleans." He identified himself as a "researcher for a major, national pundit," but declined to say who that was. My impression was that this gentleman worked for James Carville. "Elwood" used the same tactics -- spew a maximium number of unrelated charges in a minimum of time, so the other person cannot possibly remember all of them, much less respond to all of them.

Anyway, we cut Elwood off as a caller the day that he got into a direct fight on-air with the main host of "American Breakfast," Phil Paleologos. Just before that, Elwood had referred to Joe Conason as a reliable source, so his own accuracy was obviously down the porcelain facility.

Congressman Billybob

Click for latest column: "Memo to CBS about Bill Clinton."

Click for latest book: "to Restore Trust in America"

[syriacus]

But Spinsanity makes it clear that Coulter is not citing 10 different articles; instead, the list of 10 quotations comes from only four articles -- hardly the wide-ranging media dishonesty she is trying to prove.

Did Coulter say the quotes came from 10 different articles? How many examples does she have to give to prove a point? 20? 30?

It also sounds like Spinsanity thinks it is okay to be very biased as long as you put lots of bias together in one article. Nice giant loophole (/sarcasm)

When Coulter writes that the media use words such as "ugly" to describe only conservative women,

I thought Coulter explained she was talking about mainstream media and/or official liberal spokespersons. Rush Limbaugh is not a news anchorperson or politician. He does not pretend to be unbiased, like the mainstream newspersons do.

[pettifogger]

When Coulter accuses Time, Newsweek, Ladies' Home Journal and U.S. News and World Report of running pieces on senility before the 1984 election in a conspiracy to discredit Ronald Reagan, she is rebuked by the cybersleuths.

The "cybersleuths" apparently discovered that the articles at issue note that Reagan was not senile. Ann's point, however, is NOT that the articles in question made the obligatory point that the president wasn't senile, but that for SOME STRANGE REASON, all these publications decided AT THE SAME TIME to run articles on age and senility. Coincidence? I think not. And neither does Ann. That's what liberals do: raise doubt, but cover themselves (oh so thinly at times) with a toss-away line that "proves" they never meant to cast aspersions on our esteemed leader. Sheesh.