[John H K]

What's striking is the failure to engage the subject, other than by claiming that Coulter's book is a smear, which is, is it not, an example of argument-by-smear?

There's actually some pretty detailed analysis of specific lines and footnotes in the book, if you bothered to read the article.

I'd rather read one sentence of Mark Steyn or PJ O'Rourke than every word Anne Coulter has ever written.

The whole premise behind Anne Coulter seems to be that since the left is filled with rabid insulting liars whow write poorly like Michael Moore, gosh, we need one of our own too.

[onyx]

There's actually some pretty detailed analysis of specific lines and footnotes in the book, if you bothered to read the article.

Have you bothered to read Ann's book?

[Mind-numbed Robot]

There's actually some pretty detailed analysis of specific lines and footnotes in the book, if you bothered to read the article.

Being to lazy to do the research myself I will not check to see who is actually right. However, judging from the past, my money is on Coulter. Whether you agree with her or not, anyone who can't enjoy reading Coulter for the humor alone is missing a lot.

[zip]

The whole premise behind Anne Coulter seems to be that since the left is filled with rabid insulting liars whow write poorly like Michael Moore, gosh, we need one of our own too.

Tacky, tacky. You libs hate facts/truth/logic vs "feelings", huh?

[Ramonan]

You have to remember one thing: In our litigous society, if ANY of Ann Coulter's information was wrong, incorrect, or unfounded, the survivors would be ALL over her with Libel and Defamation lawsuits. Sorry, but I haven't heard of any , and you can bet the Liberal Press/Networks/CNN would trumpet that every 5 minutes. Ann knows what she is doing. She too is an attorney.