Nonsense. The distinction is between effective attacks and stupid ones. Coulter's attacks are stupid -- not the substance of what she has to say, but the mannter in which she says it. Like Carville on the Left (and Buchanan before her), Coulter is in the business of throwing red meat to the hard right for one purpose only: to enrich herself.
For every member of the "Church of Coulter" on the right who delights in her antics, there are untold numbers of average apolitical voters who see in her the worst stereotypes of conservatives -- and then paint us all with the same brush.
"Coulter is in the business of throwing red meat to the hard right for one purpose only: to enrich herself."
BS. Coulter has been broke until very very recently because nobody would publish her or allow her on TV.
Not even National Review. Apart from Human Events, which is a great magazine but pays nothing, she never even had a media outlet until John Kennedy, Jr gave her some space in George.
Her first books, though best sellers made her next to nothing. (It's a long story, but not uncommon.)
She could have made a fortune as a lawyer or as a less polemic (more politically correct) pundit a long time ago. She refused to change for money.
It is so tiresome to see people smear her as greedy when she lived in near poverty for most of her adult life because of her loyalty to her beliefs.
You don't know what you are talking about, yet you do it so authoritatively.
Why is that?
BTW, does everything said by every pundit who calls himself a conservative pass your litmus test? And if not, where are your posts condemning them?
This is a feeding frenzy for the self-righteous (and jealous).