[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!!

[BillCompton]

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

Yes! I picked up on it too. Don't you love an article like this that refers to countless errors, but can't find a good example where she says a=b, b=c, but a<>c. Perhaps disagreements count as 'errors'. After all, think about the term Polically Correct. Correctness, is not aligned with truth, but defined at the outset without any logic to validate it.

But I agree that the book should have no credibility, because Dale Earnhardt's name was covered on the NYT in a timely fashion. This Coulter mistake proves scientifically that everything in her book is dead wrong. It also proves that the NYT is NOT out of touch with the rest of the country. And it proves, conclusively, that conservatives of all stripes have been proven wrong in everything. Check and mate. I feel so vanquished!